Deleted
Joined: Nov 17, 2024 9:14:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 5:55:34 GMT -5
I never said Ike was perfect. No human is. don't you ever sleep? I sleep when all vampires sleep... during the day. |
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 21,753
Member is Online
|
Post by happyhoix on Jul 29, 2016 8:38:26 GMT -5
Blah, Blah, Blah can change too.
And no, she didn't, unless with all of your vast Supreme Court level intelligence you can do what 9 Congressional investigations have failed to do. At least yours will be free!  And yes, she did. You and all her deniers can obfuscate all you like. The facts say she was the person in charge of the State Department. The problem happened because the State Department didn't act on credible intelligence (not to mention good old fashioned common sense In a terror torn country, on the anniversary of the worst terrorist attack in world history... and no one saw it coming? Really?). I don't know if you know it or not, but there's a saying in the Navy: "The captain is responsible. Period." He can be in bed, asleep, and if the ship runs aground on a known sandbar at 3:00AM (0300) because whoever was on-duty navigating missed it on the chart... the captain is responsible. It doesn't matter that he wasn't steering the ship. It doesn't matter that he wasn't reading the charts. It doesn't matter that he wasn't even on the bridge at the time. It's the same situation here. Ultimately everything that happened under her is her responsibility. Even if she didn't directly do it, she picked the person that did... or picked the person that picked the person... or picked the person that picked the person that picked the person. As to "what 9 Congressional investigations have failed to do"... Congressional investigations tend to find what they want to find and to ignore what they don't want to. If you trust Congress to do a good job at ANYTHING you are living in a dream world. Congress hasn't "worked" in decades (that's not their fault though, admittedly... that's the fault of the American voters who keep sending poor choices TO Congress). Actually if you look through the report issued from the last investigation, the military took the brunt of the blame for the failure to come to the aid of the Embassy. If I remember correctly, the soldiers who ultimately went to the scene were on hold for hours before they were finally sent, and were told, during that waiting period, to go change clothes four times as the military brass debated whether they should show up there in their military uniforms or dressed in civilian clothes. If they had just hauled ass like they should have, it might have had a different outcome.
Obama did accept responsibility for how the whole thing went down. But you can't pin it on HRC - and believe me, plenty of time and tax payer money was spent trying to do just that.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 29, 2016 9:01:01 GMT -5
I sleep when all vampires sleep... during the day. I bet you spend all day coffin. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 29, 2016 15:43:39 GMT -5
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,897 
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Jul 29, 2016 16:08:08 GMT -5
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,334
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
Member is Online
|
Post by Opti on Jul 29, 2016 16:09:29 GMT -5
Enough of Trump's followers listened to him that ratings for his acceptance speech were higher by 1.6 million people than Hillary's. He must be so proud.  for free speech!
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-tops-clinton-on-speech-ratings/ar-BBv2fEQ?li=BBnb7Kz
Donald Trump has defeated Hillary Clinton - at least when it comes to TV ratings for their acceptance speeches.
Last Thursday at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, 34.9 million people watched the Republican nominee across broadcast and cable networks.
This Thursday in Philadelphia, 33.3. million viewers saw Hillary Clinton give her historic speech as the first woman nominated for president by a major party, according to preliminary results.
Trump had boasted last week that "no one would watch" the Democratic National Convention and hailed the ratings of the Republican convention on Twitter. But after the Democrats beat the Republicans the first three nights in total viewers, Trump appeared to back away from his claim on the production of the GOP gathering last week.
|
|
Icelandic Woman
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 4, 2011 22:37:53 GMT -5
Posts: 4,897
Location: Colorado
Favorite Drink: Strawberry Lemonade
|
Post by Icelandic Woman on Jul 29, 2016 16:37:50 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 17, 2024 9:14:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2016 22:40:45 GMT -5
The American compound at Benghazi was a CIA outpost. The State Department set up a post there after the fall of Ghaddafi. On a night that the Libyan Ambassador was visiting Benghazi and staying there, the post was attacked. The Ambassador and three others were tragically killed. Given the situation in Libya, the embassy in Tripoli had requested more security. That went to State Department channels, but not to the SoS, who does not typically handle security details. The American outpost in Benghazi was a CIA outpost. I can certainly see why Republicans are so upset with Clinton though. She is going to be the next POTUS, and they don't like it. Not one bit. The bolded was under Clinton's purview as Head of the State Department. Let me repost the salient part: "The State Department set up"... Not "the CIA set up"... not "The Military set up"... not "The President set up"... not "Congress set up". Who was in charge when it was set up? Hillary Rodham Clinton. Then there's the little gem that's underlined... the request "went to State Department channels"... it didn't go through "military channels"... it didn't go through "congressional channels"... it didn't go through "police channels of the host country". NO. It "went to State Department channels"... and who was in charge of the State Department at the time? Hillary Rodham Clinton. Divert all you like. It doesn't change the facts that even you posted. |
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Jul 30, 2016 9:54:53 GMT -5
This just means that the military fell on the sword
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 30, 2016 10:50:28 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 17, 2024 9:14:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 11:03:43 GMT -5
Do you ever read anything but the headline?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,662
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 30, 2016 11:08:45 GMT -5
That is of course a mischaracterization of the truth, but what should one expect from a right-wing media site? They began an analysis of the results when Trump's support was apparently being under-recognized. The problem was confirmed when Clinton's was as well. There is and was no attempt to "lift" Hillary Clinton. A reasonable person would see that in an instant from reading the Reuters link rather than the biased one.  |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2016 11:17:57 GMT -5
this sounds a lot like what you said in 2012. |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2016 11:18:40 GMT -5
This just means that the military fell on the sword ime, that literally never happens. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 30, 2016 12:52:55 GMT -5
this sounds a lot like what you said in 2012. So, you're going to make the change Reuters just announced making in 2016 about something I said in 2012? 2012 is over. This is now. And it's got zero to do with me. |
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Jul 30, 2016 12:53:51 GMT -5
Do you ever read anything but the headline? Do you? I always do. I don't post what I have not read. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,410
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 30, 2016 12:59:52 GMT -5
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,662
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 30, 2016 13:00:53 GMT -5
Yes, you apparently read the headline. And you probably read the twisted and biased article along with it. You almost certainly ignored the original article which reported the facts. link (Same link as bill's) |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2016 13:09:45 GMT -5
this sounds a lot like what you said in 2012. So, you're going to make the change Reuters just announced making in 2016 about something I said in 2012? 2012 is over. This is now. And it's got zero to do with me. Gallup changed up their polling methodology in 2012. their new methodology (which showed Romney leading) was far worse. you praised it. as tallguy and bills correctly said, you need to dig deeper to see what the real impacts are. pollsters are always trying to improve accuracy. accurate polls are better "products" to sell to those that use polling as part of reporting. you are suggesting that selling an inferior product is somehow helping polling agencies, which is absurd. you made the same suggestion in 2012. are we understanding one another, now? |
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,705
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 30, 2016 17:47:53 GMT -5
When I think this POS could not sink any lower, Trump does. "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices."Trump draws backlash for comments on slain soldier's father No you self-centered POS-you have sacrificed nothing. Nothing at all. When one of your children die in battle serving their country, then you can say you made a sacrafice (sic). Even then, you sacrificed nothing-your child did. he won't apologize, and he won't take it back. he is truly loathsome. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,834
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jul 30, 2016 17:50:44 GMT -5
When I think this POS could not sink any lower, Trump does. "I think I've made a lot of sacrifices."Trump draws backlash for comments on slain soldier's father No you self-centered POS-you have sacrificed nothing. Nothing at all. When one of your children die in battle serving their country, then you can say you made a sacrafice (sic). Even then, you sacrificed nothing-your child did. he won't apologize, and he won't take it back. he is truly loathsome. This sad pile of crap called Trump was worthy of its own thread so I deleted my post.  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 17, 2024 9:14:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 20:09:32 GMT -5
Sigh. It was a CIA Outpost. The State Dept. set up a compound there..... It was STILL a CIA outpost.
The mission in TRIPOLI sent out requests for more security, NOT Benghazi.
This went through normal channels. The SoS does not determine security numbers and post Marines any more than they secure food safety..... not their job. To the extent that HRC was captain of the ship- she acknowledged that of course.
Richard- 9 subcommittees couldn't find a way to make her guilty- and neither can you.
I am diverting nothing. These are the facts.
BTW- foreign posts are often dangerous, and unfortunately personnel die on virtually every President has casualties on their watch. Many years ago I went to school with the American foreign service in mind, and we were made very well aware that when one starts their career their they can expect low pay, lousy posts, and danger. It goes with the territory, unfortunately.
You mean "9 subcommittees chose to not press charges against her". She was responsible whether they could "find a way to make her guilty" or not. Let me ask you this: If a man rapes a woman, and is never prosecuted for it (maybe he pays people for an alibi and the woman has no proof... whatever the reason he doesn't get prosecuted)... did he still commit the crime or do you say he didn't do it because he was never prosecuted? |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,662
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 30, 2016 22:14:26 GMT -5
Responsible does not imply culpable.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,410
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 30, 2016 22:23:39 GMT -5
Something I find interesting is the assumption that if the number of people assigned to the security team had been increased that there would have been no loss of life in Benghazi. It could have just as easily lead to an increase in US fatalities.
A second thing I find interesting is that Clinton is cast as responsible for 4 deaths while 2 deaths resulted from an attack on a CIA, not a State Department facility.
I wish that the investigations would have been as interested in the CIA involvement as they were in Clinton's.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,662
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 30, 2016 22:36:46 GMT -5
And do the same people blame Reagan for the many attacks and hundreds of deaths we suffered then? Or Bill Clinton? Or George W. Bush? Or is it just Hillary and Obama? (Actually, they probably do blame Bill Clinton.) |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,662
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 30, 2016 22:39:46 GMT -5
Something I find interesting is the assumption that if the number of people assigned to the security team had been increased that there would have been no loss of life in Benghazi. It could have just as easily lead to an increase in US fatalities. A second thing I find interesting is that Clinton is cast as responsible for 4 deaths while 2 deaths resulted from an attack on a CIA, not a State Department facility. I wish that the investigations would have been as interested in the CIA involvement as they were in Clinton's. And if I recall correctly, part of the reason for a lack of security at the CIA facility was to NOT draw attention to it as a possible target. A large security presence would have been counterproductive to the mission. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 17, 2024 9:14:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 23:48:48 GMT -5
Something I find interesting is the assumption that if the number of people assigned to the security team had been increased that there would have been no loss of life in Benghazi. It could have just as easily lead to an increase in US fatalities. A second thing I find interesting is that Clinton is cast as responsible for 4 deaths while 2 deaths resulted from an attack on a CIA, not a State Department facility. I wish that the investigations would have been as interested in the CIA involvement as they were in Clinton's. What you "find interesting" is based on a false assumption. Who said that they assumed more people would have meant no loss of life? I certainly didn't. However... more people on the ground would have been "steps taken to try and combat/confront/stop the issue". Even if the same number of people had died, or even if more had died... at least she would have TRIED to do something to alleviate the problem. As it is, she did nothing. And doing nothing definitely got 4 Americans killed. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 17, 2024 9:14:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2016 23:52:19 GMT -5
I'm about done with this silly argument anyway. One can only tell people the sky is NOT falling so many times.... I agree... although I was going to go with "one can only tell people 'the sky is blue' so many times"... Basically: facts are facts no matter how the masters of spin wish to spin them. And the facts are that HRC was in charge, and therefore it was her responsibility. She failed to act and people died... then she lied about it. Those are the facts that they are unimpeachable. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,410
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 31, 2016 5:47:24 GMT -5
Something I find interesting is the assumption that if the number of people assigned to the security team had been increased that there would have been no loss of life in Benghazi. It could have just as easily lead to an increase in US fatalities. A second thing I find interesting is that Clinton is cast as responsible for 4 deaths while 2 deaths resulted from an attack on a CIA, not a State Department facility. I wish that the investigations would have been as interested in the CIA involvement as they were in Clinton's. What you "find interesting" is based on a false assumption. Who said that they assumed more people would have meant no loss of life? I certainly didn't. However... more people on the ground would have been "steps taken to try and combat/confront/stop the issue". Even if the same number of people had died, or even if more had died... at least she would have TRIED to do something to alleviate the problem. As it is, she did nothing. And doing nothing definitely got 4 Americans killed. To quote one of my Father's favorite sayings, "Do something, even if it is wrong". I don't think the issue was lack of security. I think the issue was CIA activities in the area. That is what got people killed. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 17, 2024 9:14:38 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2016 6:12:27 GMT -5
It's better to try, yet fail than it is to do nothing and fail anyway.
|
|
