2016 Presidential Race

[TLDR20]

Impressive in protecting her misions

View attachment 13925

The world is a dangerous place.

 

[Florida173]

The world is a dangerous place.

Not quite sure how that's relevant. Bush wasn't Secretary of State and giving her a pass based on that is amateur.

 

[racing_kitty]

The world is a dangerous place.

Last time I heard the "but he got away with it" argument, folks weren't sober, or if they were it's because they weren't old enough to drink. Just because it happened on someone else's watch doesn't mean that they weren't responsible for it, nor does it absolve HRC of her role as the captain of that ship.

As to why the media didn't crucify Bush 43 when those embassy-related fatalities occurred? Most likely, it was because the media had bigger fish to fry than dead peons. Dead embassy workers count for just as little, if not less than dead soldiers when trying to compose a charge sheet of your sworn mortal enemy. Who knew? Frankly, with the rabid, bone deep, pathological hatred that most liberals harbor for Bush 43, it's a wonder that the dead embassy folks weren't paraded around on Mardi Gras floats while the progressive establishment were issuing a clarion call for an immediate reenactment of the French Revolution.

Then again, even the author of the Politifact article said that there are valid reasons to treat the Benghazi incident differently, starting with the fact that the last time an AMBASSADOR was killed was back in the 1970's. Surely, you don't discount that. Yes, or no, I think there's a thread a few pages back that is more suitable for this sub-debate.


*Hijack over*

 

[AWP]

Some of the embassy stuff is garbage. They would pin bombings in KABUL on Clinton? C'mon....I can't stand the woman and even that isn't fair. A bombing in Kabul? If that's on her then the Hague should try Bush and Obama as war criminals. With apologies to Allen Iverson, but we're talking about Kabul? It's easy to sum it up when you're just talking about Kabul. I mean, listen, we're talking about Kabul, not Benghazi, not some country that's seen civilization in a hundred years, we talking about Kabul.

Statistics are dangerous.

 

[TLDR20]

Not quite sure how that's relevant. Bush wasn't Secretary of State and giving her a pass based on that is amateur.

Blaming an embassy bombing on The Secretary of State is amateur dude. My point with posting that is administrators aren't responsible for terror attacks. They happen. We cannot prevent every one. When you live and work in a dangerous place you assume risk. It is literally part of the job description.

 

[Florida173]

Blaming an embassy bombing on The Secretary of State is amateur dude. My point with posting that is administrators aren't responsible for terror attacks. They happen. We cannot prevent every one. When you live and work in a dangerous place you assume risk. It is literally part of the job description.

Reading comprehension..

No one is blaming embassy bombings on the Secretary of State. The actual subject that was brought up was that the administrators are responsible for diplomat security. Hillary herself has taken responsibility for the events in Benghazi.

"I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."
Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security - CNN.com

 

[DA SWO]

Blaming an embassy bombing on The Secretary of State is amateur dude. My point with posting that is administrators aren't responsible for terror attacks. They happen. We cannot prevent every one. When you live and work in a dangerous place you assume risk. It is literally part of the job description.

They are when the decide not to spend all the force pro money.
Just ask BG Schwalier about being held responsible as an administrator.

 

[Florida173]

Some of the embassy stuff is garbage. They would pin bombings in KABUL on Clinton? C'mon....I can't stand the woman and even that isn't fair. A bombing in Kabul? If that's on her then the Hague should try Bush and Obama as war criminals. With apologies to Allen Iverson, but we're talking about Kabul? It's easy to sum it up when you're just talking about Kabul. I mean, listen, we're talking about Kabul, not Benghazi, not some country that's seen civilization in a hundred years, we talking about Kabul.

Statistics are dangerous.

Are you discounting the list of her failures to protect her diplomatic missions because Kabul is in Afghanistan?

Statistics can be dangerous, but there are no statistics here.

 

[AWP]

Are you discounting the list of her failures to protect her diplomatic missions because Kabul is in Afghanistan?

Statistics can be dangerous, but there are no statistics here.

No and I don't know how anyone could interpret that from my post. I specifically addressed Kabul because it is Kabul and Iron Man couldn't protect the embassy.

 

[Florida173]

No and I don't know how anyone could interpret that from my post. I specifically addressed Kabul because it is Kabul and Iron Man couldn't protect the embassy.

I was confused when you opened with "Some of the embassy stuff is garbage." and then went on to the Hague and war crimes.. and then mentioned Kabul. So.. rants are pretty easy to poorly interpret.

 

[AWP]

I was confused when you opened with "Some of the embassy stuff is garbage." and then went on to the Hague and war crimes.. and then mentioned Kabul. So.. rants are pretty easy to poorly interpret.

Kabul, yes. Peshawar is a maybe. Kabul's a given and Pakistan isn't known for internal stability. The act of detonating a bomb near an embassy isn't a reflection on the Sec State's role in security or oversight. Let's be honest, without Benghazi none of this would be a talking point but that thrust the issue into the spotlight. "Statistics are dangerous" speaks to this point: add something to a list and it looks impressive until you think about the event or events and then that list decreases. I'm all for taking her to task, but I wouldn't include those in my talking points.

 

[Florida173]

Kabul, yes. Peshawar is a maybe. Kabul's a given and Pakistan isn't known for internal stability. The act of detonating a bomb near an embassy isn't a reflection on the Sec State's role in security or oversight. Let's be honest, without Benghazi none of this would be a talking point but that thrust the issue into the spotlight. "Statistics are dangerous" speaks to this point: add something to a list and it looks impressive until you think about the event or events and then that list decreases. I'm all for taking her to task, but I wouldn't include those in my talking points.

I can't speak to the details of the events and won't go into characterizing them as only a bomb being detonated near an embassy. They are identified specifically as attacks on embassies and consulates, and while granted I made the list from Wikipedia and didn't do any additional research for a lack of interest, I will use it as a metrics for what she accomplished as Secretary of State. I'm not sure why I would remove anything regarding her from any "talking points" I may have on her, especially things that she takes public and full responsibility for.

 

[DA SWO]

How many of the attacks during the Bush Presidency were in Afghanistan or Iraq?

Yesterdays local radio station said Clinton's e-mails also included the detailed movement plan for the Ambassador, at what point do her supporters hold her accountable for something?

 

[Florida173]

How many of the attacks during the Bush Presidency were in Afghanistan or Iraq?

None

Kabul's opened in 2006
Iraq's opened in 2008

 

[x SF med]

Blaming an embassy bombing on The Secretary of State is amateur dude. My point with posting that is administrators aren't responsible for terror attacks. They happen. We cannot prevent every one. When you live and work in a dangerous place you assume risk. It is literally part of the job description.

I have to go with TLDR here. Historically, ambassadorial staff, emissaries, negotiators for governments have been important, but at the same time expendable. It is a dangerous job, there is no way to take the risk down to zero, or probably below 50% in many of the hotspots. also, if you look at the history of diplomacy in the region under discussion... the home of the "Great Game"... getting below a an 80% risk factor would be superb.

I'm not condoning Mrs. Clinton's actions, attitude or defense of either.... she ignored intelligence, stopped support teams and blamed her subordinates for the failure she promulgated... I am just pointing out that the job of an envoy, especially in the area, is beyond dangerous.

 

[AWP]

None

Kabul's opened in 2006
Iraq's opened in 2008

None?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/world/asia/20afghan.html

KABUL, Afghanistan, March 19 — A convoy from the United States Embassy was hit by a suicide car bomb on a busy road here on Monday, killing a 14-year-old Afghan bystander and seriously wounding an American security guard in the convoy, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/asia/09afghan.html

KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 8 — A suicide bomber smashed his car into an American military vehicle just yards from the United States Embassy in downtown Kabul on Friday morning, killing as many as 16 people and wounding 29, Afghan and American officials said.

Bomb hits U.S. Embassy convoy in Kabul - USATODAY.com

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A suicide car bomber attacked a three-vehicle U.S. Embassy convoy on a notoriously dangerous road in the Afghan capital on Monday, killing an Afghan teenager and wounding five embassy security personnel, officials said.

 

[Florida173]

None?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/world/asia/20afghan.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/asia/09afghan.html



Bomb hits U.S. Embassy convoy in Kabul - USATODAY.com

Agreed that these should count, but as they weren't attacks on the embassy or consulate, they weren't on the list. I'm sure the numbers would be higher than what I listed previously if I were to include all attacks on convoys with diplomats.

 

[Salt USMC]

Democrats are starting to hit back at Trey Gowdy's Benghazi committee. After presumptive speaker Kevin McCarthy's remarks about the email scandal, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) attempted to attach an amendment to a motion that would close the select committee on Benghazi to a motion that would open a committee to investigate Planned Parenthood. The move was largely symbolic, and failed on a 7-2 vote in the rules committee, but nonetheless the Dems are starting to push back.


Dem move to kill Benghazi Committee fails

Dem move to kill Benghazi Committee fails
House Democrats launched a failed bid to dismantle the Select Committee on Benghazi, in light of renewed criticism of the committee.

During a Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday evening, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) attempted to attach an amendment to shut down the committee to another piece of legislation creating a new select committee to investigate Planned Parenthood.

The amendment would have eliminated the language creating a new Planned Parenthood subcommittee within the Energy and Commerce Committee and replaced it with language to abolish the Benghazi panel, her office said.
The measure from Slaughter — the top Democrat on the Rules panel, which sets House's schedule — failed on a partly line vote 7-2.

Still, it represents the first official action from Democrats to strike down the committee, more than a year after it was created and a week after high profile comments expected next House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).

In lighter news, a liberal group called "The Agenda Project"has launched a petition to investigate the Benghazi committee investigation. Realistically their chances of succeeding are zero, but it's funny to ponder the idea of the "Select Committee to Investigate the Select Committee Investigation on Benghazi".

Petition Calling For An Investigation Of Benghazi Committee Leaves Republicans Reeling

Petition Calling For An Investigation Of Benghazi Committee Leaves Republicans Reeling
A new petition calling for an investigation into the House Republican Benghazi Select Committee has put Republicans back on their heels as the American people are demanding answers.

The petition from The Agenda Project states:

The actions of Leader McCarthy should disgust every decent American. This is not a “gaffe,” it is a gross assault on the most basic structure and purpose of government. It has to stop. No citizen – Republican or Democrat, or Independent – wants a government official to use his or her constitutionally granted power (and taxpayer dollars) to attack political opponents.

Further, the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Benghazi released a letter to the Chair, Trey Gowdy, which calls the committee “an unethical abuse of millions of taxpayer dollars and a crass assault on the memories of the four Americans who were killed in Benghazi.”

Americans deserve to know exactly what happened in the lead up to the Select Committee on Benghazi and who played a part in this contemptible misuse of government.

I seriously doubt that this petition "put Republicans back on their heels", but it's in there for completeness'-sake.


Now, there's no love lost between me and Hilldawg Clinton, but the Benghazi committee has been operating for nearly 18 months now. That's nearly double the length of the previous-longest investigation. And what do they have to show for it? The email scandal has spun into its own circus and significantly damaged Hillary's campaign, but the committee has barely shed any new light on the Benghazi attacks. It may be that Trey Gowdy is just playing his cards close to his chest and will release some scathing indictments in the final report, but right now it appears that the committee has just been dithering away for almost a year and a half with nothing to show for it.

 

[Bypass]

Since it hasn't happened yet, I figured I'd open Pandora's Box for everyone.

Who do you like at this point and why? If you had to vote tomorrow...and who are you intrigued by as a possibility a year from now, with a little more information?

Only days ago, Ben Carson was the guy that I said "Maybe in a year when I hear a little more..." But now, tomorrow he'd be the guy. Simply put, because I like everything the guy has to say, and he's the first candidate I wholeheartedly believe. My experience with voting only extends to 2002, mind you.

Just interested in the unique opinions of the board members here.

Honestly man, I don't want to vote for any of them. I might vote for Trump though since he is my kind of asshole and the insuing chaos would be hilarious to watch. I am a bit of a dick though. Carson seems to be down to Earth and I like Huckabee because I am a big fan of GOD.

 

[DA SWO]

Democrats are starting to hit back at Trey Gowdy's Benghazi committee. After presumptive speaker Kevin McCarthy's remarks about the email scandal, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) attempted to attach an amendment to a motion that would close the select committee on Benghazi to a motion that would open a committee to investigate Planned Parenthood. The move was largely symbolic, and failed on a 7-2 vote in the rules committee, but nonetheless the Dems are starting to push back.


Dem move to kill Benghazi Committee fails


In lighter news, a liberal group called "The Agenda Project"has launched a petition to investigate the Benghazi committee investigation. Realistically their chances of succeeding are zero, but it's funny to ponder the idea of the "Select Committee to Investigate the Select Committee Investigation on Benghazi".

Petition Calling For An Investigation Of Benghazi Committee Leaves Republicans Reeling


I seriously doubt that this petition "put Republicans back on their heels", but it's in there for completeness'-sake.


Now, there's no love lost between me and Hilldawg, but the Benghazi committee has been operating for nearly 18 months now. That's nearly double the length of the previous-longest investigation. And what do they have to show for it? The email scandal has spun into its own circus and significantly damaged Hillary's campaign, but the committee has barely shed any new light on the Benghazi attacks. It may be that Trey Gowdy is just playing his cards close to his chest and will release some scathing indictments in the final report, but right now it appears that the committee has just been dithering away for almost a year and a half with nothing to show for it.

Last paragraph. You say there is no love lost, but ignore the "Hilldawg" (your words) refusal to honor subpoena and her attempts to destroy evidence. A good prosecutor doesn't quit when the subject destroys evidence or refuses to testify.

She's no different than Nixon (when it comes to destroying evidence) and her husband's whining is funny, because they are on the receiving end of the shit the slung at opponents during their many campaigns.