Comments on: Friday Talking Points [367] -- Hillary's Very Good Week

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:36:06 +0000

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/10/28/gop-candidates-spar-at-debate-over-greenrooms/?intcmp=hpbt4

Jeeezus H Christ, the GOP'ers are a bunch of whiners!!!

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:04:46 +0000

Paula,

A true believer..

Kudos... :D

It's going to be so rough for you when she is jailed or has a stroke....

When that happens, lean on your fellow Weigantians.. We'll get you thru it...

Michale

By: Paula

Paula — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 20:01:04 +0000

One of the other things I like about Hillary is her nerdy wonkishness. I'm quite sure she could talk by the hour about every issue confronting this nation -- she's a natural student and she cares about learning. Unlike the blowhards there is depth. She doesn't always make choices I agree with and I worry about her hawkishness but, unlike so many others, she has shown herself to be able to evaluate the success or failure of efforts and course-correct. Go Hillary!

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 19:38:19 +0000

Actually akadjian proved you wrong. I was just pointing that out... Regardless... The point is, is that *I* acknowledge when I am wrong and someone else is right.. In that, I am unique amongst Weigantians... But, as I said, while extremely annoying, it's not why I am here... "Doesn't that bother you? I mean, no recognition, no credit.." "Well, I could probably say the same things about you. I mean, with your discoveries, you could have won the Nobel Prize like 5 times over already.." "Too true.. Well, I guess none of us signed up to get famous, huh?" "Nope.. We did it for the money.." -STARGATE ATLANTIS :D

By: BashiBazouk

BashiBazouk — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:21:34 +0000

Bashi proves ME wrong, I have the decency and courtesy to stick around and concede the point...

Actually akadjian proved you wrong. I was just pointing that out...

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 18:06:15 +0000

I don't know why I even bother any more..

I proved Mopshell wrong, she just bails..

I proved David wrong, he just bails..

Bashi proves ME wrong, I have the decency and courtesy to stick around and concede the point...

It's tough always having to be the adult around here..

Oh well, it's a bear I must cross, I spose....

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:43:40 +0000

What's that? Resist concession in hopes the conversation moves on then only grudgingly concede when it becomes blatantly obvious you can't get away with it any longer? :D

While I wouldn't have put it in those terms, Yes..

Admit when you are wrong when the facts clearly show you are..

*I* can do that..

Can you??

No, you cannot..

If it was a consulate, who was the consul? Can you name them?

Ambassador Stevens...

Yes, but was that due to conflicting intelligence and making the wrong call or a specific conspiracy?

The WHY wasn't the question...

It was specifically stated here that Hillary DID NOT blame the attack on the video..

I PROVED that she DID blame the attack on the video.

Now this is an interesting question. Hillary says they never made it to her.

The buck stops with her, Bucko..

SHE was in charge...

If she DIDN'T know about it, she SHOULD have known about it..

THAT WAS HER JOB....

She either knew and did nothing or she didn't know what was going on in her own department..

Either way, she was incompetent..

At least, she would be if she had a '-R' after her name...

But she was a Democrat so, as far as ya'all are concerned, she is as pure as the driven snow..

Michale

By: BashiBazouk

BashiBazouk — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 17:32:18 +0000

You see how that works, Bashi?? You should try it some time... What's that? Resist concession in hopes the conversation moves on then only grudgingly concede when it becomes blatantly obvious you can't get away with it any longer? :D 1. WAS the attack at a STATE DEPARTMENT Consulate?? If it was a consulate, who was the consul? Can you name them? 2. DID Hillary Clinton blame the video in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack.. Yes, but was that due to conflicting intelligence and making the wrong call or a specific conspiracy? 3. DID Hillary Clinton ignore over 600 requests from Ambassador Stevens for security upgrades.. Now this is an interesting question. Hillary says they never made it to her. The requests were to the state department, not specifically to Hillary and those below her did not pass them on. I personally think Hillary and the state department were not the only actors in the decision. There has been a few stories about the CIA using the diplomatic compound as a front for some operation. The weapons to Syria angle has been shot down but some articles point to understanding the local terrorist connections as well as buying and funneling weapons to other rebel groups in Africa. There is something fishy with Benghazi. Unfortunately that fishiness is likely to remain classified until long after anyone is interested in it. Maybe wikileaks will come up with something...

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 16:10:47 +0000

It's SO simple I had to post it twice!! :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:43:30 +0000

OK Fine.. I see your point and I stand corrected.. In that regard, you were right and I was wrong.. You see how that works, Bashi?? You should try it some time... Oh, that's right.. I forgot. Ya'all ARE NEVER wrong about ANYTHING... But ya'all STILL ignore the FACTS.. It wasn't the CIA's initial assessment. The CIA sent their initial assessment to the State Department and the State Department omitted the terrorism angle and inserted the bullshit about the video and the protest... So, in essence, it was the STATE DEPARTMENT's initial assessment.. Why is it ya'all can't answer three simple questions?? 1. WAS the attack at a STATE DEPARTMENT Consulate?? YES, it was.. 2. DID Hillary Clinton blame the video in the immediate aftermath of the terrorist attack.. YES she did.. 3. DID Hillary Clinton ignore over 600 requests from Ambassador Stevens for security upgrades.. YES she did... You can spout off with all the GOP reports you want to... But the FACTS clearly show Hillary's incompetence.... Ya'all can't address the questions because ya'all can't admit ya'all are wrong... It's that simple... Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:43:13 +0000

By: BashiBazouk

BashiBazouk — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 15:26:24 +0000

A mention that I cannot find ANY WHERE in the report that David linked.. Page 26 paragraph 1 for those who are not too lazy to read (or even skim) the document. When I use this amazing and miraculous process on ANY word combinations (called --"sentences"--) in David's quote, there is absolutely NOTHING found... That's because your knowledge of computers and file types is seriously lacking (and you are too lazy to read). It's a government PDF. Which means it's just a scan of paper documents. If you want to search it, you will have to OCR the document... But your technical diatribe confirms my long held suspicion about your reading abilities...

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 12:23:38 +0000

And in still other news..

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-appears-show-cop-body-slamming-student-s-c-classroom-n451896?hootPostID=ddc47d50e6e942fc252780d064524b0c

Once again, a cop does his duty against an unruly and violent black person and HE is the bad guy...

You couldn't PAY me enough to be a cop these days...

No, that's not true... But it's increasingly exasperating that cops are being demonized simply for doing a near impossible job with honor and integrity and unruly thugs are being hero-worshipped..

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 09:17:19 +0000

On a totally unrelated note, I have a question..

Cops in Maryland are disguising themselves as homeless people to catch cell phone texting drivers..

Cop poses as homeless man to catch texting drivers
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/10/27/cop-poses-as-homeless-man-to-catch-texting-drivers/?intcmp=hphz09

While I applaud the idea and think it's great, here's where I have a question..

During the two-hour sting, police issued 56 traffic citations and 22 warnings for a range of infractions, according to WTOP. A texting ticket cost offenders $70 and a ticket for talking on the phone while driving is an $83 hit.

It seems to me that TEXTING while driving is a LOT more, a HELLUVA lot more distracting than simply TALKING on the phone..

So, why is the fine for TALKING more than the fine for TEXTING???

That's insane!!

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:48:06 +0000

Regardless of the issue of the irrelevant Youtube Video and the phantom/mythical protest that didn't exist, here is one fact that NONE of you can address.. Ambassador Stevens sent SIX HUNDRED request for upgraded security... SIX HUNDRED 3AM phone calls to Hillary Clinton.. ALL of them un-answered, un-addressed.. Because Hillary had her phone off the hook.. So, quote ALL the GOP reports you want.. But it won't change the fact that Hillary was incompetent as SecState... "These are the facts. And they are undisputed." -Captain Smilin' Jack Ross, A FEW GOOD MEN Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:38:09 +0000

Unless they were literate. The report specifically mentions one early report from the CIA about protests. A mention that I cannot find ANY WHERE in the report that David linked.. You seem to be really going out of your way to not read that report. Why is that? Because, there is this really nifty feature called --"CTRL-F"-- that allows me to search ENTIRE TEXT for specific words or word combinations called "sentences" (Pay attention, there will be a test later).. Now, here is where it gets complication. To utilize the --"CTRL-F"-- feature, you ALSO have to be familiar with another concept called --"Cut & Paste"--... (I am not going too fast for you, am I??) Using --"Cut & Paste"-- I extract (--"CUT"--) a combination of words (called --"sentences"--). I then switch screens to David's link, hit (that means press the key(s)) --"CTRL-F"--, then --"PASTE"-- (--"CTRL-V"--) into the search box and click on SEARCH. This miraculous process searches the entire document for the specified word combinations called --"sentences"--... It's an amazing process!! When I use this amazing and miraculous process on ANY word combinations (called --"sentences"--) in David's quote, there is absolutely NOTHING found... Now, there is an added twist, since this is a PDF document being viewed thru a CHROME plug-in, but I don't want to overwhelm you.. Suffice it to say that the quote David made is not part of the link he sent... Class dismissed.. "Zombie, don't forget your hatchets.." -Clyde, WRECK IT RALPH :D Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:23:18 +0000

Yawn.

I accept ya'all's concession... :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:15:26 +0000

Paula,

The Repubs have spent 30+ years (give or take) demonizing everything not-them and consequently many,

I wonder if you can appreciate the complete and utter irony of this statement. :D

The Repubs want a showdown -- let's have it.

Be careful what you wish for..

Hillary's health is none too good...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 08:15:26 +0000

Paula,

The Repubs have spent 30+ years (give or take) demonizing everything not-them and consequently many,

I wonder if you can appreciate the complete and utter irony of this statement. :D

The Repubs want a showdown -- let's have it.

Be careful what you wish for..

Hillary's health is none too good...

Michale

By: Paula

Paula — Wed, 28 Oct 2015 03:34:07 +0000

I think one of the other things I really like about Hillary is that, as a result of being the recipient for years of the kind of utter nonsensical, baseless abuse exemplified by the Benghazi witch-hunt, she has no stars in her eyes about dealing with this radical Republican party. If she wins, she knows going in that she will get nothing but hatred from these people and she's prepared for that. And I think that's what we need. The Repubs have spent 30+ years (give or take) demonizing everything not-them and consequently many, many of us really just despise them. They wanted us to hate them and they are really good at being hateful so now we do. And we don't want to reach out to them anymore; we don't want to be reasonable with them and we don't have any doubts left to give them the benefit of. The thing with Hillary is that there will be no pretense and wasted time. If she gets in, or Bernie, I hope she/he does everything legally and ethically possible to make them irrelevent. The Repubs want a showdown -- let's have it.

By: BashiBazouk

BashiBazouk — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 23:30:06 +0000

I have them so befuddled and on the ropes, they have to quote REPUBLICAN REPORTS to justify their positions!! :D

Just a day in the life here in Weigantia... :D

Yawn.

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:40:49 +0000

Biga,

If your aim is to convince, your ridiculous excesses are hurting your effort.

"Convince"!???

I am not trying to "convince" anyone.. I know that THAT is impossible..

I would have a MUCH better chance to convince Obama to have a booty call with Rush Limbaugh than I would to convince ya'all that Democrats ARE part of the problem and not part of the solution....

My goal here is to make a sincere effort to TRY and keep ya'all SOMEWHAT planted in reality..

For example...

Mopshell claimed that it wasn't a consulate that was attacked, that it was a CIA station.

I have proven that wrong with the FACTS...

David claimed that Hillary never blamed the video and mythical protest for the deaths...

I have proven THAT wrong with the facts...

And so on and so on and so on..

I have them so befuddled and on the ropes, they have to quote REPUBLICAN REPORTS to justify their positions!! :D

Just a day in the life here in Weigantia... :D

Michale

By: BashiBazouk

BashiBazouk — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:36:57 +0000

ANYONE who is saying that the CIA report stated that the video and non-existent protest were the cause is fabricating utter bullshit.. Unless they were literate. The report specifically mentions one early report from the CIA about protests. I realize it's impossible for ya'all to admit when yer wrong... But there it is, in black and white.. Your Democrat report notwithstanding... What's black and white? That you can't read? Nothing in your quote disproves that there was a CIA report about a protest in Benghazi. You seem to be really going out of your way to not read that report. Why is that?

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:31:21 +0000

Bashi, David,

Ask yerselves ONE question..

If the intelligence was so sure-fire well known that it was a YouTube video and a protest of same that cause Benghazi..

"HOW DID I KNOW WITHIN HOURS THAT IT WAS A TERRORIST ATTACK!??"

It's hilarious..

Ya'all call Republicans TERRORISTS and criminals and hostage takers, yet you are QUOTING their report as if it's gospel!!

THAT is hilarious.. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 21:21:58 +0000

Ya know, it's funny..

Ya'all were slamming and castigating Hillary right along with me a little bit ago..

Once she became the inevitable candidate, ya'all jump to her defense...

Funny, iddn't it. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 20:49:17 +0000

I think it pretty clearly states who is uttering "fabricated bullshit" in this thread...

yep... It IS clear...

ANYONE who is saying that the CIA report stated that the video and non-existent protest were the cause is fabricating utter bullshit..

The talking points given to Rice were extensively revised, largely at the request of the State Department. The original CIA talking points said, “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” And they said that “[i]nitial press reporting linked the attack to Ansar al-Sharia.” References to al-Qaeda and Ansar al-Sharia were removed.

I realize it's impossible for ya'all to admit when yer wrong...

But there it is, in black and white.. Your Democrat report notwithstanding...

Michale

By: BashiBazouk

BashiBazouk — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 19:36:10 +0000

Actually, NONE of what David posted is even PART of the report that he gave the link for.. You could not even bring yourself to read five paragraphs? Because it's right there, page one, paragraph five... So, I stand by my original assertion.. It's complete and utter fabricated bullshit.. Yes, we understand your fact finding methodology pretty well at this point. The ONLY intelligence assessments coming from the CIA was that it was a terrorist attack.. I understand that if five paragraphs is beyond your reading abilities, making it to page 26 would be really difficult, but should your make the plunge, I think it pretty clearly states who is uttering "fabricated bullshit" in this thread...

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:45:48 +0000

If you are honest with yourself, you will see that you are upset with the piece only because it was highly critical of Hillary Clinton. Anyone who is critical of Queen Hillary MUST be silenced!!! The ONLY "facts" allowed are the lies.. er.. "facts" that paint Hillary in the best possible light.. Anything else is just the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" even if it's from President Obama.. That is the way it's going to be from now until she implodes... Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:40:21 +0000

Now, if you want the CURRENT facts about Benghazi, you just need to read the facts that were posted..

yea, I know, I know...

Ya'all don't need no stinkin' facts..

Hillary is pure as the driven snow and no amount of FACTS or reality will get ya'all to say any different..

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:24:51 +0000

There’s a feminist civil war brewing over Caitlyn Jenner
http://nypost.com/2015/10/26/theres-a-feminist-civil-war-brewing-over-caitlyn-jenner/

Ya'all can't see it, but I am laughing my ass off! :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:21:48 +0000

Actually, NONE of what David posted is even PART of the report that he gave the link for..

So, I stand by my original assertion..

It's complete and utter fabricated bullshit..

The ONLY intelligence assessments coming from the CIA was that it was a terrorist attack..

The Administration was watching it in real time, fer christ's sake!!

The video had NOTHING to do with the Benghazi attack.

This is FACT...

There WAS NO PROTEST WHATSOEVER...

THIS is fact...

I realize ya'all have problems with facts..

But, like the cop said in MEN IN BLACK..

"It's your problem.."

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 18:04:57 +0000

If you had bothered to read the report, you would know what akadjian quoted was in the summery to which a couple of full pages in the main report went in to more detail. The minority rebuttal was not quoted but is appendix 2 if you are interested...

It still doesn't jibe with the yunno... FACTS...

Since it was such total bullshit, I just assumed it was from the Democrats...

Michale

By: BashiBazouk

BashiBazouk — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:02:29 +0000

I was born at night, but not LAST night. :D

That was from the DEMOCRAT rebuttal of the Republican document..

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 10:41:58 +0000

Frakin' A, Mr President!! "14-13 Michigan! Way to go, Mr President!!" -Steward, AIR FORCE ONE :D Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 09:45:51 +0000

Obama weighs moving U.S. troops closer to front lines in Syria, Iraq
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-weighs-moving-us-troops-closer-to-front-lines-in-syria-iraq/2015/10/26/4ae2f36c-7bec-11e5-b575-d8dcfedb4ea1_story.html

What have I always said??

You can't accomplish jack sheet w/o boots on the ground..

"Leading From Behind" is not a viable strategy.. It's cowardice...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:56:25 +0000

David, Mopshell... Let's forget about Hillary's lies to the families of the dead... Let's forget about the bogus Youtube video excuse and the mythical protest that never happened.. Let's concentrate on what we KNOW.. Ambassador Stevens sent the State Department over SIX HUNDRED requests for security upgrades.. Hillary's response?? I didn't get the memo... Forget everything else about Benghazi and concentrate on that.. Four good Americans were brutally murdered because Hillary "didn't get the memo"... In 2008, Hillary made the claim that SHE was the best qualified to answer the 0300 emergency call.. Hillary got SIX HUNDRED 0300 emergency calls... But she had her ringer off.. And THAT is who you want as our next POTUS... Seriously!!??? Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 08:45:45 +0000

Biga,

For example, absolving Bush of his responsibility for the implementation of torture as US policy is beyond irrational lying.

NO ONE mentioned Bush/torture issues so how could I absolve Bush of that??

But, since you bring it up, I have absolutely NO PROBLEM with torturing scumbag terrorists for intel...

It's well documented (plus my own personal experiences in the field) that coercive interrogations (torture, for those with the stomach) produces high quality actionable intel and directly lead to dozens, if not hundreds of terrorist attacks being exposed and destroyed...

It also lead directly to the elimination of public enemy #1, Osama Bin Laden..

So, yea.. I CHEER President Bush that he had the integrity and the outright cajones to ignore the namby pamby Democrats and ignore politics and do what's right for this country..

Frakin' A, Mr President!!

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:47:34 +0000

Biga,

We are indeed in agreement about Hillary being dishonest,

That's what I said..

We are in complete agreement about Hillary being dishonest...

David,

Again, from the (Republican) document:

Come'on David!

I was born at night, but not LAST night. :D

That was from the DEMOCRAT rebuttal of the Republican document..

The fact is that the CIA issued it's initial report that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack most likely from the Ansar al-Sharia terrorist group..

That report went to the State Department which altered the text, taking out all reference of terrorism and playing up the mythical protest...

But you still aren't addressing the point.

DID Hillary blame the video for the attack or didn't she??

I am getting two different stories here..

Michale

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:37:57 +0000

Mopshell,

Joe Biden would never call anyone an idiot.

If you knew anything about Joe Biden, you would know that.

We're done here.

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 07:15:03 +0000

Elizabeth,

If you were honest, you would see that your defense of Dowd, even defending her against Biden, is because you loathe Hillary Clinton and you wanted Biden to run against her. You couldn't care less what was best for Joe Biden and his family.

http://wonkette.com/595318/maureen-dowd-is-a-idiot-says-joe-biden-and-everyone-else

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 04:07:52 +0000

Mopshell,

Truth be known, I don't always agree with everything Maureen Dowd writes ... but, I know to take whatever she says with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of humour.

I just didn't think that what she wrote about the vice president and his son rose to the level of being so offended by it. I'm not sure the vice president was referring to her in his remarks to 60 minutes.

I also think Maureen Dowd feels like she needs to make amends for how she has treated Biden over the years, especially with respect to her pieces having to do with his "plagiarism" episode in the 1988 presidential race. I think she truly feels bad about her treatment of him and knows that America has really missed an opportunity in 2016 to have Biden in the mix.

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 02:16:11 +0000

Mopshell,

Clearly, you need to go back a re-read Dowd's piece but, this time, try to do so without allowing your apparent disdain for her (because she spent the first two-thirds of her piece being critical of Hillary?) to skew your reading of what she was saying about the vice president and his son and, more to the point, what she was not saying.

There simply was no "Hollywood-esque version of events" or anything untoward in her piece about the Biden family.

If you are honest with yourself, you will see that you are upset with the piece only because it was highly critical of Hillary Clinton.

By: akadjian

akadjian — Tue, 27 Oct 2015 01:23:18 +0000

This is documented fact.

Where? In what document?

Again, from the (Republican) document:

"Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate. There was a stream of contradictory and conflicting intelligence that came in after the attacks. The Committee found intelligence to support CIA's initial assessment that the attacks had evolved out of a protest in Benghazi; but it also found contradictory intelligence, which ultimately proved to be the correct intelligence."

https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

-David

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 23:08:41 +0000

Micha

We are indeed in agreement about Hillary being dishonest, like you, but I definitely do not agree with all of your crazy wingnut rants... so don't celebrate too much.
In fact, very little of what you are going on about is relevant or accurate... let alone "independent" or original.

Why are you resorting to trollery, dishonesty and hyperbole when an honest, contextual and factual case can easily be made?

If your aim is to convince, your ridiculous excesses are hurting your effort.

For example, absolving Bush of his responsibility for the implementation of torture as US policy is beyond irrational lying.
And that's just the tip of your crazytown iceberg.

You keep claiming your "independent" status is proven because you often rag on Repubs, though I have yet to witness it despite numerous compelling opportunities, but all we get is right wing partisan defending of every bit of Repub bull, including brainless revisionism most Repubs have by now admitted to be false.

Get your head out of your rear.
Integrity need not be a casualty in order to make a point.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:28:12 +0000

And these facts are PROVEN by ya'alls own two-faced arguments..

On the one hand, ya'all claim that Hillary "never claimed that the youtube video/non existent protest was the cause of the attack...

Yet, in the VERY same breath, ya'all make the TOTALLY BS claim that intelligence DID state that the youtube video/non existent protest was the cause of the attack..

Do you see how badly ya'all are tripping over yersleves to protect Hillary, a KNOWN and PROVEN liar that over 60% of the American people agree that she is liar/dishonest/untrustworthy...

I get it.. Hillary is ya'all's coronated queen.. I understand that..

I just never thought those who support this rhymes-with-witch would sell their souls and their integrity to do so....

Color me saddened...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:05:42 +0000

This is the fact that ya'all refuse to accept..

NO INTELLIGENCE *EVER* stated that the phantom video/protest was the cause of the Benghazi attack..

*ALL* the intelligence, plus my own assessment here mere hours after the attack stated unequivocally *AND CORRECTLY* that the Benghazi was, in fact, a terrorist attack..

It was only the politicizing of the Hillary Clinton and the Obama Administration that put out the TOTALLY BOGUS and LIE that an internet video and non-existent protest was the cause of the Benghazi attack..

Let me repeat that because ya'all seem to have a comprehension problem..

NO INTELLIGENCE *EVER* stated that the phantom video/protest was the cause of the Benghazi attack..

*ALL* the intelligence, plus my own assessment here mere hours after the attack stated unequivocally *AND CORRECTLY* that the Benghazi was, in fact, a terrorist attack..

These are the facts...

And they are indisputable...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 22:00:48 +0000

Haha. You clearly have no idea what the word "hypocrite" even means. I'm not surprised. Here's a hint: you should never use the word "idiotic". Ahhhhhh The old I-KNOW-YOU-ARE-BUT-WHAT-AM-I rebuttal.. As I said... Pretty much what we have come to expect from you.. :D Congratulations on your Winning! Why, thank you.. Your concession means.... absolutely nothing to me. :D The Puppet Master

By: John From Censornati

John From Censornati — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:52:34 +0000

Dear chatbot, Haha. You clearly have no idea what the word "hypocrite" even means. I'm not surprised. Here's a hint: you should never use the word "idiotic". Congratulations on your Winning!

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:21:56 +0000

See? This is the Republican concept of "personal responsibility" in action. You are a hypocrite because somebody (not you) said something.

Nice try sunshine.. :D

But Mopshell is being hypocritical because she uses a Godwin (according to YOU anyways) but doesn't say anything when others are (falsely) accused of committing a Godwin...

But I don't expect you to be able to comprehend the intricacies...

Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit..

Lame beatnik coffee house idiotic statements is pretty much your par for the course.. :D

But, once again.. Thanx for playing.. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:16:40 +0000

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-clinton-evaded-questions-on-benghazi-stonewall/article/2574845

The length and the cost of the Benghazi??

Completely and utterly Clinton's fault...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:12:01 +0000

Hmmm ... 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.

The email server is part and parcel to the Benghazi investigation..

It's WHY the Benghazi investigation has taken so long.

If Hillary had used the State Dept's system as she was supposed to, then all the emails would have been available...

You just don't get it...

Hillary is a everything you CLAIM to hate......

But because she has a '-D' after her name, you HAVE to support her and sing her "praises"...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 21:01:07 +0000

This is documented fact..

But what's the use of bringing facts to the discussion..

Ya'all actually believe that Hillary is a person of integrity who never lies..

I guess since Hillary has clinched her coronation ya'all have changed your tune about her...

Color me surprised.. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:42:35 +0000

David,

This has been repeatedly addressed. It was the intelligence at the time.

No it was not. The intelligence at the time was that it was a terrorist attack..

Hillary posted that via email to family members and foreign governments..

The ONLY place that the youtube/protest fantasy was, was in the spin of the Obama Administration.

This is documented fact..

Michale

By: John From Censornati

John From Censornati — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 20:33:52 +0000

Mopshell, "When I made the same observation against JFC, I was accused of a Godwin.. Hypocrisy much?" See? This is the Republican concept of "personal responsibility" in action. You are a hypocrite because somebody (not you) said something. This should help you understand why Hillary is personally responsible for faulty CIA "intelligence" and Obama (or one of the Clintons. Take your pick.) is personally responsible for the rolling disasters that occurred on King George W's watch.

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:57:06 +0000

Elizabeth

Of course Beau wanted his father to run. I never disputed that. It was common knowledge that Biden's family supported him and that he discussed his plans with all of them. I knew about that long befor beau died and I'm sure Dowd did too.

You don't seem to get what a callous jerk Dowd is for making up this Hollywood-esque version of events. For someone who claims to be an admirer of Biden's, you sure didn't seem to care that Dowd exploited his son's death and his grief to inject a little Hollywood-esque drama into her column. Even when Joe Biden himself says no scene like that took place, you are still defending her over him.

Obviously you and I have very different concepts of what is truth and what is decent.

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:47:24 +0000

BTW Elizabeth, I didn't refer to it as "a dying, death-bed wish". You are the one projecting that onto me. I was just quoting the Raw Story headline in case anyone wanted to look up the story.

By: akadjian

akadjian — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:38:54 +0000

Here's the link btw to the 2012 report.

https://intelligence.house.gov/sites/intelligence.house.gov/files/documents/Benghazi%20Report.pdf

Kind of funny how it went away for two years only to reappear as the Presidential election started ramping up.

By: akadjian

akadjian — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 19:37:56 +0000

Hmmm ... 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7 have nothing to do with what happened in Benghazi.

Just like the Congressional investigation.

Lie #3
Hillary claimed that it was a YouTube video that caused a Benghazi protest that turned violent and killed Americans in Benghazi.. There was no protest and the video had NOTHING to do with the Benghazi attack. Hillary KNEW this, but told the video lie anyways..

This has been repeatedly addressed. It was the intelligence at the time. From the 2012 report (released right before the election btw):

I expect your concession and apology shortly ;).

-David

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 16:00:39 +0000

BTW Mopshell, there was no mention of a dying, death-bed wish or conversation in Dowd's piece.

That was something that you and many others projected onto the piece.

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:52:35 +0000

Mopshell,

Obviously, you still don't understand what happened or why you got "hammered" for what you said.

Yes, of course there was no dying death bed wish for a presidential run. Sometimes, in a piece like the one in question from Maureen Dowd, you have to read between the lines and use your own judgement.

You may or may not recall that the gist of Maureen's piece was accurate in that Beau Biden did indeed want his father to run.

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 15:03:57 +0000

This past weekend, Joe and Jill Biden were interviewed by Norah O'Donnell on 60 Minutes. Raw Story mentioned it in an article titled: "Joe Biden slaps down Maureen Dowd’s version of ‘Beau Biden’s dying wish’ story". With regard to the version Maureen Dowd described in her New York Times article, Joe Biden said unequivocally that no such scene took place. Furthermore, he described Dowd's fiction as "Hollywood-esque". I said Dowd was lying and I got hammered for it. So thank you, Joe Biden, for vindicating me.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:59:05 +0000

But did you like my b-day present to Hillary?? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:57:57 +0000

One poll showing that 60% of those surveyed are just as misinformed as you are does not make Hillary a liar. And it is not 60% of Americans as you well know. Saying that is a LIE, Michale. I made the statement and backed it up with a poll.. If quoting a poll to substantiate a claim is a lie, then we're ALL liars.. :D Iran doesn't have anyone worried more than normal. Yea, but the facts say otherwise.. But it's nice that you concede that Iran's actions ARE worrisome.. :D Your childish rantings about Hillary Clinton is just that - childish rantings. No more childish than ya'alls rants against GOP'ers. Terrorists?? SERIOUSLY!?? The difference between ya'alls rants and mine is that MINE are supported by... yunno.. FACTS.. He used the same techniques Goebbels used. When I made the same observation against JFC, I was accused of a Godwin.. Hypocrisy much? :D What you are citing aren't facts. Really!!?? Our ambassador DIDN'T die!!!??? Hillary DIDN'T say, "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son." to the father of a man killed in Benghazi?? All I HAVE are facts.. But they are facts that none of ya'all want to hear.. Therefore you ignore them or your ridicule them.. Yet the FACTS say otherwise.. Well fiction isn't fact, Somebody should let Hillary I-Was-Named-After-Edmund-Hillary-And-I-Dodged-Sniper-Fire-In-Bosnia Clinton... Because the world where Hillary actually has INTEGRITY and is a viable candidate for POTUS is as big of a fiction world as Harry Potter's world.. And JUST as (non)believable... Michale

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:50:35 +0000
One poll showing that 60% of those surveyed are just as misinformed as you are does not make Hillary a liar. And it is not 60% of Americans as you well know. Saying that is a LIE, Michale. Iran doesn't have anyone worried more than normal. Your right wing sources are stirring up fear and loathing as usual. They don't know any other way to get your attention. Fear and loathing will do it every time. Your childish rantings about Hillary Clinton is just that - childish rantings. You hate her. We get it. She didn't lie but you're going to lie yourself stupid because that's what you want to believe the lies told about her. You are so easy. You're exactly the kind of person Frank Luntz had in mind when he came up with a way to turn people against Democrats. He used the same techniques Goebbels used. Luntz said that all Republicans had to do was to keep repeating their lies, distortions and disinformation and people like you would believe them. Congratulations. You fell for it. You are so deeply mired in the propaganda that you don't even know what a fact is any more. What you are citing aren't facts. You say they are but that doesn't make these fabrications facts, Michale. You believe any conspiracy theory no matter how often it's disproved. You twist people's words to make them fit what you want to believe, cherry-picking bits of sentences so the meaning is changed. You know you do this. Sadly, you think it's clever. Going on and on about the same old lies and distortions doesn't make any difference, Michale. You are indisputably wrong. Just because you belief it is not proof. Surely everyone here by now knows you will always be the same, live in your own little fantasy bubble. The irony is you use film quotes all the time, quotes from fiction stories that you think makes it sound like a fact. Well fiction isn't fact, Michale and you can't make it fact just by saying it is.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:41:03 +0000

Let me wish Hillary Clinton a happy birthday

http://sjfm.us/temp/happybday.jpg

:D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:28:59 +0000

Since the Hillary=Liar facts have been established (over 60% of Americans agree with me),

Ooops.. Forgot to substantiate... :D

Clinton is not honest and trustworthy, voters say 61 - 34 percent, her lowest score ever
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2274

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 14:02:41 +0000

Since the Hillary=Liar facts have been established (over 60% of Americans agree with me), we can move on to other subjects..

Obama/Comey clash on Black Lives Matter...

Iran's new aggression has Democrats worried...

Take yer pick.. :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:17:25 +0000

Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.
-Hillary Clinton, 2230hrs 11 Sep, 2011

Why bring up the Youtube video at all if she KNEW it had NOTHING to do with the terrorist attack??

It's like saying, "With regards to the Roseburg OR shooting, we deplore the use of violence in an armed robbery that was committed in New York City"

One has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other...

I am also constrained to point out that Hillary stated that there was a protest which is a COMPLETE and PROVABLE fabrication...

At least with the video, the Left Wingery DOES have a modicum, an ingot, a smidgen of spin...

But claiming that there was a protest is a COMPLETE and UNEQUIVOCAL fabrication. An out and out LIE...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 12:07:20 +0000

As far as Clinton's status as the Coronated Dem Candidate?? I couldn't be happier...

You think the drip, drip, drip of Benghazi and the drip drip drip of her private emails server is bad??

It is almost guaranteed that the GOP has some REALLY juicy and REALLY devastating opposition research that they are keeping to themselves for the General...

Clinton is going to have to answer to scandals every day of the General Election..

It's gonna be a hoot.. :D

And all because the Democrat Party couldn't find ANYONE with a smidgen of integrity as a POTUS Candidate...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:54:29 +0000
#1: Whether she received emails from her husband or not has nothing to do with Benghazi. (It's an irrelevant distraction. Do try to stay on track.) My discussion with David vis a vis Hillary's lies is a different discussion not solely limited to Benghazi.. In other words, THAT subject is Hillary's lies.. #2: Clinton was right, she sent NO CLASSIFIED INTEL through her email server. That has already been proven as false. Over 400 emails sent thru Hillary's private insecure bathroom closet email server contained classified intel.. This is documented fact.. #3: That was not Clinton's call and if you were honest you'd know that and say so. Yet Clinton stated time and time again that the video caused the attack. She even told the families of the victims as much.. It was a lie. Plain and simple... #4: Clinton was right. The select committee did not subpoena her emails, they subpoenaed her to appear in person at a hearing about her emails. WOW.. Now THAT is a tap dance worthy of the greats!!! It was a lie.. Clinton had a subpoena. She claimed she didn't... 5: Clinton told reporters she set up the private email server because she did not want to carry two separate devices for personal and State Department communications. More tap dancing.. Next you will want to determine what the definition of "is" is.. :^) The State Department did know about the server even if you choose not to believe it. It's documented fact that the State Department did NOT know about her private insecure bathroom closet email server. Anyone who saw the address she used had to know. The address was a giveaway even I would've recognized. A fact does not cease to be a fact just because you choose not to believe in it. You are confusing email address with email server.. You might not be technically inclined, so it's no biggie.. My email address is michale@blaablaa.com My email goes thru a Go Daddy Server.. I don't physically control or have access to the server beyond my one piddly email address... I *HAVE* run email servers in my time. I even ran one off of an old XBOX game console! :D If I were so inclined and worked for the State Dept and wanted my own vanity email (michale@istotallyawesome.com) I could approach the IT Dept at State and ask them to configure such an email WITHIN THE SECURITY OF THEIR SECURED SYSTEM... But if I was a lying, conniving scheming rhymes-with-witch who wanted to make sure that the US GOVERNMENT would not have ANY access to my emails, I would set up my own private email server or, as Hillary did, contract someone who was in my pocket to set up a server... Oh at last you actually managed to find a lie she did tell - and had to correct and apologize for it. How many years ago was that? As you said, you had to reach back for it. So, we agree. Clinton lied.. Clinton has not lied about the attacks on Benghazi no matter how hard you want to believe she did. Yea, I know you believe that and that is really sad.. But the facts say otherwise.. "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son." -Hillary Clinton, talking to Charles Woods, father of Tyrone Woods, killed at Benghazi Doesn't get any clearer than that. Hillary Clinton lied about the Benghazi Terrorist attack... This is well documented... Michale

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:24:44 +0000
Addressing Republican lies about Hillary Clinton: #1: Whether she received emails from her husband or not has nothing to do with Benghazi. (It's an irrelevant distraction. Do try to stay on track.) #2: Clinton was right, she sent NO CLASSIFIED INTEL through her email server. The CIA redacted none of her emails because there was no sensitive material. Harold Gowdy lied when he said the CIA had redacted an email from Sidney Blumenthal. It was Gowdy himself who wielded the black felt pen and, after lying about it three times, he has now admitted he did it. He claims that he knows better than the CIA what should and should not be redacted. #3: That was not Clinton's call and if you were honest you'd know that and say so. It was the CIA's call. These attacks were on their facilities. They were expected to know what was happening. They advised the White House that it was in protest of the video, just as so many other Middle Eastern attacks had been. But the Republicans objected and refused to believe it so it was dropped. BUT captured suspect Ahmed Abu Khattala stated that the assault was in retaliation for the video. Why would he lie about that? #4: Clinton was right. The select committee did not subpoena her emails, they subpoenaed her to appear in person at a hearing about her emails. That interview took place last Thursday. Clinton was not asked to bring emails to the interview. Gowdy made that clear when he was asked about it at the time but the media deliberately misinterpreted what he said. For once Gowdy was not at fault for deliberately misleading the public. The media did that. #5: Clinton told reporters she set up the private email server because she did not want to carry two separate devices for personal and State Department communications. At no time did she say that she never carried more than one devise. Nor does the fact that she carried more than one devise prove what those devises were for. As usual, you are twisting her words to change their meaning to suit a story that just isn't true. #6: The State Department did know about the server even if you choose not to believe it. Anyone who saw the address she used had to know. The address was a giveaway even I would've recognized. A fact does not cease to be a fact just because you choose not to believe in it. #7: Oh at last you actually managed to find a lie she did tell - and had to correct and apologize for it. How many years ago was that? As you said, you had to reach back for it. No-one is perfect, Michale. No politician is a saint. Politicians on both sides of the aisle lie because they are human and that's what humans do. It's what they lie about that is telling. Clinton has not lied about the attacks on Benghazi no matter how hard you want to believe she did.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:11:47 +0000

This, despite knowing within HOURS that it WAS a terrorist attack....

Hell, *I* knew within hours that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.. :D

Ya'all SURE ya don't want to talk about TrainWreckCare?? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:10:06 +0000

For the record, Clinton didn't publicly label the Benghazi attack as a terrorist attack until 10 days AFTER the attack had taken place..

This, despite knowing within HOURS that it WAS a terrorist attack....

Once again, the facts are really inconvenient, eh? :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 11:04:59 +0000

At no time did Hillary Clinton claim it was due to a video protest - it was the CIA which said that.

This is not factual either..

The initial report from the CIA stated that it was a terrorist attack and it was likely the work of Ansar al-Sharia.. Hillary's State Dept altered the original report to remove any reference of a terrorist attack and play up the Youtube video angle..

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

Once again, these are the facts, whether you admit them or not..

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:58:40 +0000

Ambassador Stevens was at a CIA compound, not a consulate.

2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time.

You were wrong.. Have the graciousness to admit it.

I did..

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:53:21 +0000

There were over thirty violent protests in Middle Eastern countries over that YouTube video - WHY would any sane and sensible person consider this one attack out of thirty or more to be the one that's different?

Uh... Because Americans were KILLED!!

Seems like a good enough reason for me..

But, you are confusing..

First you say that Hillary didn't think that the Youtube video caused the attack, then you say that it was perfectly acceptable to think that the Youtube video caused the attack..

Huh??

The CIA were advising the Executive. It was obviously the CIA's call as to what motivated the attacks. Ignoring that fact does not make the facts go away. Twisting the story so you can blame those you don't like does not make your story real.

That's your wishful thinking, not a fact..

It was a STATE DEPARTMENT mission that was attacked, not a CIA station..

Ergo, the State Dept was the lead agency involved..

These are the facts whether you acknowledge them or not...

Regardless, everyone in the Administration KNEW immediately that it was a terrorist attack..

Everyone in the Administration KNEW....

So, why even BRING UP the video??

You have yet to answer this...

So you're wrong. Democrats did not blame George W for 9/11.

Bull crap... To this day, there are Democrats who blame Bush for 9/11 simply due to the fact that it happened on his watch..

MANY Weigantians have made statements to that very point...

I know there is no embassy in Benghazi. I also know Ambassador Stevens wouldn't have been in Benghazi if the CIA hadn't assured him it was safe. The CIA, not the State Department.

The CIA has NOTHING to do with the State Dept security. The State Department has it's own security force (Bureau of Diplomatic Security or DS)..

It was the security that Ambassador Stevens BEGGED Hillary to beef up..

It was that LACK of security that got them all killed..

Ambassador Stevens was at a CIA compound, not a consulate. The Republicans called it a consulate to give the false impression that it was a State Department building. It wasn't. It was a CIA building.

Complete fabrication ..

2:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (8:30 p.m. Benghazi time): U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens steps outside the consulate to say goodbye to a Turkish diplomat. There are no protesters at this time. (“Everything is calm at 8:30,” a State Department official would later say at an Oct. 9 background briefing for reporters. “There’s nothing unusual. There has been nothing unusual during the day at all outside.”)
3 p.m.: Ambassador Stevens retires to his bedroom for the evening. (See Oct. 9 briefing.)
Approximately 3:40 p.m. A security agent at the Benghazi compound hears “loud noises” coming from the front gate and “gunfire and an explosion.” A senior State Department official at the Oct. 9 briefing says that “the camera on the main gate reveals a large number of people – a large number of men, armed men, flowing into the compound.”
About 4 p.m.: This is the approximate time of attack that was given to reporters at a Sept. 12 State Department background briefing. An administration official identified only as “senior administration official one” provides an official timeline of events at the consulate, but only from the time of the attack — not prior to the attack. The official says, “The compound where our office is in Benghazi began taking fire from unidentified Libyan extremists.” (Six of the next seven entries in this timeline — through 8:30 p.m. EDT — all come from the Sept. 12 briefing. The exception being the 6:07 p.m. entry, which comes from Reuters.)
About 4:15 p.m.: “The attackers gained access to the compound and began firing into the main building, setting it on fire. The Libyan guard force and our mission security personnel responded. At that time, there were three people inside the building: Ambassador Stevens, one of our regional security officers, and Information Management Officer Sean Smith.”
Between 4:15 p.m.-4:45 p.m.: Sean Smith is found dead.
About 4:45 p.m.: “U.S. security personnel assigned to the mission annex tried to regain the main building, but that group also took heavy fire and had to return to the mission annex.”
About 5:20 p.m.: “U.S. and Libyan security personnel … regain the main building and they were able to secure it.”
Around 6 p.m.: “The mission annex then came under fire itself at around 6 o’clock in the evening our time, and that continued for about two hours. It was during that time that two additional U.S. personnel were killed and two more were wounded during that ongoing attack.”
6:07 p.m.: The State Department’s Operations Center sends an email to the White House, Pentagon, FBI and other government agencies that said Ansar al-Sharia has claimed credit for the attack on its Facebook and Twitter accounts. (The existence of the email was not disclosed until Reuters reported it on Oct. 24.)
About 8:30 p.m.: “Libyan security forces were able to assist us in regaining control of the situation. At some point in all of this – and frankly, we do not know when – we believe that Ambassador Stevens got out of the building and was taken to a hospital in Benghazi. We do not have any information what his condition was at that time. His body was later returned to U.S. personnel at the Benghazi airport.”
About 10:00 p.m.: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton issues a statement confirming that one State official was killed in an attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. Her statement, which MSNBC posted at 10:32 p.m., made reference to the anti-Muslim video.
Clinton: Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.

11:12 p.m.: Clinton sends an email to her daughter, Chelsea, that reads: “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group: The Ambassador, whom I handpicked and a young communications officer on temporary duty w a wife and two young children. Very hard day and I fear more of the same tomorrow.” (The email was discovered in 2015 by the House Select Committee on Benghazi. It is written to “Diane Reynolds,” which was Chelsea Clinton’s alias.)

You were right about one point, though. I did err on where Ambassador Stevens was killed. He was killed in the Consulate...

But that is the ONLY part you are right about..

It WAS a State Department Consulate, not a CIA station..

The State Dept was the lead agency..

Hillary Clinton blamed the attack on a non-existent protest caused by the youtube video..

These are the facts, whether you admit it or not..

Michale

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:37:55 +0000
I've never heard any Democrat blame George W for 9/11. There are of course the nutcases who think it was some government conspiracy but they are just that, nutcases. They don't belong to any party. They have some other party going on in their brains. So you're wrong. Democrats did not blame George W for 9/11. I know there is no embassy in Benghazi. I also know Ambassador Stevens wouldn't have been in Benghazi if the CIA hadn't assured him it was safe. The CIA, not the State Department. Ambassador Stevens was at a CIA compound, not a consulate. The Republicans called it a consulate to give the false impression that it was a State Department building. It wasn't. It was a CIA building. Ambassador Stevens was not evacuated from that building to a "safe house" - he was taken to a "safe room" where he and Information Management Officer Sean Smith were overcome with smoke inhalation. Stevens was taken from there to a hospital where efforts to revive him failed. Several hours later, a second assault targeted a different CIA compound about a mile away, killing two CIA contractors who worked for the CIA, not the State Department. Do you understand that the State Department is different from the CIA, Michale? And if you do get that, then tell us all why Harold Gowdy isn't bothering to investigate the CIA. I'm sure we'd all love to hear your expert opinion.

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 10:07:36 +0000
You're wrong Michale. There were over thirty violent protests in Middle Eastern countries over that YouTube video - WHY would any sane and sensible person consider this one attack out of thirty or more to be the one that's different? It was exactly like every other attack that night and that week. You are ignoring facts once again. Even the Egyptian government (and Egypt is located in the Middle East in case you didn't know) also believed it was because of the video because the attacks they experienced the same night were in protest of exactly that video. The CIA were advising the Executive. It was obviously the CIA's call as to what motivated the attacks. Ignoring that fact does not make the facts go away. Twisting the story so you can blame those you don't like does not make your story real.

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:47:58 +0000

Mopshell,

You have to ask yourself one question..

Why was the YouTube video even mentioned?? I can count dozens and dozens of times that Hillary mentioned the YouTube video in the context of the Benghazi attacks..

So, there is no reason to even bring up the YouTube video at all!

Everyone KNEW it was a terrorist attack from the get go... I called it within hours of the attack, fighting with EVERY Weigantian who claimed it was that awful YouTube video that was the culprit..

The comments from Sep of 2011 here in Weigantia are VERY enlightening..

But the long and short of it is that Hillary and the Administration TRIED to blame a Youtube video for the Benghazi attack.. Despite the fact that they KNEW it was a terrorist attack immediately.

The youtube video had nothing to do with it so there was NO REASON to even bring up the video..

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:38:55 +0000
I only checked out a few clips including a few that were supposedly ones where she "shined", but "presidential" is not the adjective that came to mind. Annoying. Lawyerly. Unenlightening. Well, who would have thunked it!! Biga and I are in complete agreement!! Ya see, Liz!! It's exactly as I said!! :D It would seem her flip-flop was purely political after all, with a side serving of dishonesty... in other words, typical Clinton Exactly!!! Of course, I'm in the camp that thinks she's actually just changing her words, not her beliefs, and that her supposedly progressive policies will evaporate if she is elected... Well said.. Here here!! Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 09:15:11 +0000
What is the alleged Hillary lie you want disproven, Michale? You see, that's EXACTLY the problem.. With Hillary, with ANY Democrat, it's ALWAYS "alleged".. With Republicans, it's NEVER "alleged".. It's always "fact"... But hay, I'll play.. Address these Hillary Lies... I doubt I will hear back, but it's worth a shot. :D LIE #1 Hillary said that her "personal emails" contains emails between her and her husband... She lied. Bill said he only sent 2 emails in his life and that was back when he was POTUS... LIE #2 Hillary said she never sent classified intel thru her email server. Several IGs have discovered over FOUR HUNDRED emails from Hillary's server that contained classified intel.. Lie #3 Hillary claimed that it was a YouTube video that caused a Benghazi protest that turned violent and killed Americans in Benghazi.. There was no protest and the video had NOTHING to do with the Benghazi attack. Hillary KNEW this, but told the video lie anyways.. Lie #4 Hillary claimed she had "NEVER HAD A SUBPOENA" for her emails or her email server. A Congressional Subpoena was issued to her on 4 Mar (Hay, that's my anniversary!! :D) Lie #5 Hillary claimed that she used her own private insecure bathroom closet email server because she carries only one device.. She has been quoted AND seen in the past using and carrying several devices.. Lie #6 Hillary claims that her private insecure bathroom closet email server was "allowed" and "cleared" by the State Dept".. NO ONE at the State Dept has the authority to ALLOW or CLEAR such an insecure device.. No one at the State Dept even KNEW about the private insecure bathroom closet email server except those who were personally in Hillary's pocket.. Lie #7 I had to reach back for this one because it's just so damn funny!! Hillary claimed that when she landed in Bosnia they had to run to the terminal under sniper fire... I have about 20 or 30 more lies, but let's see if you address these first... Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 08:57:31 +0000
Mopshell, Of course the ambassador died. No-one, except you, has said he didn't. The LIE is that it hadn't nothing to do with anything Hillary Clinton did. She didn't cause it. Bush didn't cause anything about 9/11, Abu Ghraib.. That didn't stop Democrats from blaming him.. Right?? You seem unaware that the attacks happened at a CIA building in Benghazi, not the embassy. Actually, YOU seem unaware that there was no "embassy" in Benghazi.. You also seem unaware that there were TWO attacks in Benghazi.. The first attack was at the CONSULATE against Ambassador Stevens and party.. Heroic efforts by CIA people evacuated Stevens to a nearby CIA safe house... At no time did Hillary Clinton claim it was due to a video protest - it was the CIA which said that. I honestly do not know how to address such a blatant fantasy.. Hillary told the FAMILY of those killed that they would prosecute the film maker of the video for what he did to their kin... Do you HONESTLY want me to get ALL the quotes of Hillary saying it was the video?? Would it make any difference if I did?? Would it change your mind?? Of course not..You would simply ignore the facts in favor of your fantasy... Michale

By: altohone

altohone — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 04:28:20 +0000

Hey CW

Back from vacation.
Offline and away from home... so nice.
But back to the grind.

Um, "Biden", Webb and Chafee dropping out is only good for Hillary if you assume they would hurt her chances for the nomination... and the evidence doesn't support that.
(I suppose that splitting the corporatist, Iraq War supporting Dem vote with Biden could have helped Bernie early on)
All three recognized they didn't stand a chance (sorry Liz) so calling it a win for Hillary is a stretch.

Also, did you watch the hearings?
I mean all 11 hours?
There were so many people commenting on them who clearly did not, I just have to know if you managed to stomach it.

I only checked out a few clips including a few that were supposedly ones where she "shined", but "presidential" is not the adjective that came to mind.
Annoying.
Lawyerly.
Unenlightening.

Granted, outshining the numbnut Repubs was obvious, but that is such a low bar, it's like a kid frying ants with a magnifying glass... neither difficult nor commendable.
(my apologies to ants for the comparison, as they serve a vital role in ecosystems and work selflessly for the good of their societies unlike Repubs)

The supposedly "good" polling numbers for Hillary are also suspect, as they essentially just reflect Biden being removed from polls he never should have been included in to begin with, so the uptick is rather manufactured. I recognize that's debatable, as Bernie could have gained more than he did, but her increase was not because Bernie's support decreased... though the establishment pundits tried desperately to spin it that way.

Haven't had a chance to go back and read what I missed while I was gone yet, but I haven't seen much about Hillary's debate claims about the TPP despite not having access to the final text (according to the WH). It would seem her flip-flop was purely political after all, with a side serving of dishonesty... in other words, typical Clinton.

Shrub the Younger cutting staff and salaries is too funny. Did he blow his huge wad or is he hoarding for the future?

Ryan trying for Speaker suggests he knows his dreams for higher office are of the pipe variety.

Speaking of pipe dreams, good to see Americans are continuing to grow greener.
The numbers show that Bernie's position on the War on Weed makes Hillary's look completely regressive like so many of her other positions.
Who knows, she keeps adopting his policies, so maybe she'll get to that one too.
Of course, I'm in the camp that thinks she's actually just changing her words, not her beliefs, and that her supposedly progressive policies will evaporate if she is elected...

... and that will have to happen without my vote.

A

By: akadjian

akadjian — Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:35:04 +0000

What is the alleged Hillary lie you want disproven, Michale?

Of course I'm a bit skeptical that anything will convince you.

-David

By: Mopshell

Mopshell — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 23:54:01 +0000
Michale, Of course the ambassador died. No-one, except you, has said he didn't. The LIE is that it hadn't nothing to do with anything Hillary Clinton did. She didn't cause it. You seem unaware that the attacks happened at a CIA building in Benghazi, not the embassy. So why isn't Harold Gowdy's super special little committee investigating the CIA? It was their building, their mission, not the State Department's. But oh no, they're not interested in going after the CIA. At no time did Hillary Clinton claim it was due to a video protest - it was the CIA which said that. Also, from the very first, Obama called it an act of terrorism - he's on video saying it! Mitt Romney was wrong and should have had the decency to apologize when he was proved wrong. Meanwhilem the CIA thought that because there were so many other anti-video protests in the Middle East at the same time, this was another one. Why would anyone not think this was the same? More than 30 violent anti-video protests but not this one? That defies common sense! Chances are, it was the video which sparked this attack too. But the Republicans covered it up because it didn't suit their narrative. They even made up stuff like an order to "stand down" - another total LIE from the Republicans. And they refused to take responsibility for the fact that it was them who cut the budget for security, by millions of dollars. Just last week Jason Chaffetz came out and said he voted to cut embassy security before Benghazi. He was not the only one. The State Department warned Republicans the year before the Benghazi attack that they were seriously undercutting embassy security. The State Department was right. But after the Benghazi attack, did the Republicans vote for raising security funding for embassies? No they did not. Apparently they're hoping for another such tragedy they can pin on someone they find threatening. They are big into killing Americans for their own ends.

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:24:39 +0000

The problem is when it turns into a witch hunt.

Abu Ghraib was the textbook definition of a witch hunt..

http://img07.deviantart.net/86ab/i/2013/012/6/2/star_trek_the_next_generation_drumhead_quote_by_ent2pri9se-d5h90ac.jpg

Which is why no one here can address it...

Michale

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:17:16 +0000

Actually, referring back to my comment #82, the correct phrase that is my new motto is ...

"...sunny ways, my friends, sunny ways."

Which, to be sure, will lead to many sunny days! :)

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:10:41 +0000

Hell, Democrats came out and blatantly STATED they want to politicize tragedies..

I notice no one wants to address THAT little... yunno... FACT...

Credit where credit is due..

JM actually addressed this..

He said it's perfectly acceptable for Democrats to politicize tragedies, but it is NOT acceptable for Republicans to politicize tragedies..

Which is the same thing as *I* have been saying....

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:03:32 +0000

If ya'all are feeling too beat up on this issue, we can always discuss TrainWreckCare...

The Decline of ObamaCare
Fewer enrolles and rising loss ratios will force a rewrite in 2017.

ObamaCare’s image of invincibility is increasingly being exposed as a political illusion, at least for those with permission to be honest about the evidence. Witness the heretofore unknown phenomenon of a “free” entitlement that its beneficiaries can’t afford or don’t want.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-decline-of-obamacare-1445807092

TrainWreckCare is DOA.... :D

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 22:00:23 +0000

I mean, 8 investigations. Seriously? I bet if you interviewed 100 people on the street, not one could even tell you why they're still holding hearings.

And if you interviewed 100 people and asked them about Abu Ghraib which BARELY rose to the level of college hazing, they would say the same thing..

THAT is what you don't get...

Democrats politicize things JUST as much, if not MORE, than Republicans...

Hell, Democrats came out and blatantly STATED they want to politicize tragedies..

I notice no one wants to address THAT little... yunno... FACT...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:55:33 +0000
In 2012, the focus was on Barack Obama. Notice how he's never mentioned anymore. Nice spin, but I ain't buying it.. You said that Benghazi would "disappear" as an issue after the 2012 election... You didn't make ANY qualifiers... Except that's not true at all. The focus in all these investigations was on the actual events. I think this was true for the first Benghazi hearing. It is important to find out what we could do better. But that's NOT what you claimed above.. You claimed that the GOP didn't give a rat's ass about American lives.. I stated that neither did the Democrats with THEIR hearings.. I mean, 8 investigations. Seriously? I bet if you interviewed 100 people on the street, not one could even tell you why they're still holding hearings. And the SAME applies to ALL the hearings the Democrats held... You can't see it because of the Left Wing blinders you wear.... Prove me wrong... Address comment #81... Michale

By: akadjian

akadjian — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:48:05 +0000

Because that is, nearly word for word, the EXACT same thing you said about the 2012 Elections.

In 2012, the focus was on Barack Obama. Notice how he's never mentioned anymore.

Republicans realized they could resurrect it for Hillary. I wonder if it will be just as successful :).

Neither did Democrats during the 9/11 hearings, the Iraq War hearings and the Abu Ghraib hearings.

Except that's not true at all. The focus in all these investigations was on the actual events. I think this was true for the first Benghazi hearing. It is important to find out what we could do better.

The problem is when it turns into a witch hunt. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g

I mean, 8 investigations. Seriously? I bet if you interviewed 100 people on the street, not one could even tell you why they're still holding hearings.

-David

By: BashiBazouk

BashiBazouk — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:31:42 +0000

one of which is that driving under the influence really does increase the risk of causing an accident.

And yet that is not shown show far in the numbers from states that have legalized recreational weed...

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:23:05 +0000

In other news... As a subject that is near and dear to my heart...

Obama fuels the flames of the anti-cop movement
nypost.com/2015/10/24/obama-fuels-the-flames-of-the-anti-cop-movement/

Obama and the rest of the Left Wing cop haters should keep in mind one thing..

http://sjfm.us/temp/line.jpg

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:14:18 +0000

JUST like Obama's and Hillary's lie was about politics... AND Democrats winning the election..

Which PROVES beyond any doubt the validity of comment #81...

It's OK.. I know ya'all are COMPLETELY INCAPABLE of admitting it...

Chalk it up to another win by forfeit...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:03:12 +0000

the national institute on drug abuse did a study that found THC did impair driving ability, perhaps not in the same way as alcohol, but still in ways that are dangerous. it reduced reaction time and increased the effects of even small amounts of alcohol, which would otherwise be within legal limits. besides which, driving too slowly can at times be just as dangerous as driving too fast. perhaps in response to unreasonable attitudes of legalization opponents, I think a culture has developed among marijuana advocates that tends to minimize its real dangers - one of which is that driving under the influence really does increase the risk of causing an accident.

Well said, Joshua....

I am willing to wager that if Bashi had to sponge body parts off of roadways due to DUIs, he would sing a much different tune...

It's all about THEORY.. And little to no experience with the reality...

Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 21:01:30 +0000
Essentially, it was time for a change. Yea, that's what the American Left said back in 2008... It's worked out SOOO well.. :^/ Justin Trudeau proved that divisiveness and the politics of fear can be soundly defeated by the politics of "sunny days, my friends, sunny days". That may become my new motto. :) Tired of HOPE AND CHANGE??? :D Can't say I blame ya... Michale

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:59:46 +0000
That's because it's a farce, Michale. I don't think even the GOP knows what they were supposed to be mad about any more. They're just digging for something, anything, they can use on Hillary. The GOP doesn't give a shit about any dead Americans. Yea.. neither did Democrats during the 9/11 hearings, the Iraq War hearings and the Abu Ghraib hearings.. What's yer point?? It's about politics. And Republicans winning the election. JUST like Obama's and Hillary's lie was about politics... AND Democrats winning the election.. Again.. What's your point?? It's all about lowering Hillary's poll numbers, just like Kevin McCarthy said. Actually McCarthy said no such thing.. But why interrupt such a nice hysterical tirade with.. yunno.. FACTS... November 5th, 2015, the entire thing disappears. OMG... David, did you SERIOUSLY just say that!?? :D Because that is, nearly word for word, the EXACT same thing you said about the 2012 Elections... But THIS time, it's true, right?? :D And I seem to recall that *I* said that Benghazi would likely be with us for the next 2 or 3 elections... Election Day is a very effective cure for many cancervative thought disorders. Last year it conquered the Ebolaphobia. It wasn't back in 2012 when this prediction was first made.. Why do you think now it will be different?? Oh yea, that's right. I forgot.. Yer in the bag for the Democrat Party... Michale

By: Elizabeth Miller

Elizabeth Miller — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:54:56 +0000

David,

I was very pleased by the result of our election of a very strong majority Liberal government. Prime Minister-designate Justin Trudeau is in the process now of selecting a cabinet and he has a very good group of MPs to select from.

I think most Canadians had tired either of the long tenure of the Conservatives under Harper's leadership or of the politics of fear campaign that Harper ran. Essentially, it was time for a change.

The Aboriginal vote, generally speaking, turned out in very large numbers, too, for the Liberals, electing a record 10 Aboriginal MPs. I'll be watching very closely as to how the Trudeau government handles the issues that revolve around the relationship between Canada and First Nations, Metis, and Inuit - a relationship which continues to be in desperate need of repair and rebalance.

So, we are in a wait and see mode right now. I, for one, am hoping to see Trudeau take quick action on his economic platform - including living with deficits in the short term while interest rates are low as we invest in infrastructure, raising tax rates on the wealthiest Canadians to pay for a middle class tax cut.

Justin Trudeau proved that divisiveness and the politics of fear can be soundly defeated by the politics of "sunny days, my friends, sunny days". That may become my new motto. :)

By: Michale

Michale — Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:54:29 +0000
Ya'all ignore Hillary's lies completely and unequivocally, claim that it's the REPUBLICANS who are "lying" but can't point to a SINGLE lie.. Which proves one thing beyond ALL doubt... Lying is like politicizing tragedies... It's ONLY bad when Republicans do it.. When Democrats do it, not only is it perfectly acceptable, it's actually ENCOURAGED and REWARDED... Yea.. NO hypocrisy here. :D Michale