/dev/null Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I wonder what the payola for this was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Clinton Cuomo 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Looks like everybody is thinking the same thing I was when I first heard the news. That is, somewhere Bill Clinton is fuming and will one day get his packback for his wife being forced to fall on the sword like this. This pre-debate move has Val Jarrett's and Axlerod's hands all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I think BO will exercise executive privilege, create a tenth Supreme Court Justice position, appoint Hil'ry and "fix" it sometime during his second term. Constitution, we don't need no stinkin' Constitution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) The father of Christopher Stephens, the United States ambassador who was killed in the attack in Libya last month, said Saturday that it would be "abhorrent" for his son's death to be politicized in the presidential campaign. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Jan Stevens said the attack on Benghazi and the ensuing investigation has no place in the upcoming election. "The security matters are being adequately investigated," Stevens, who is getting briefings from the State Department on the investigation, said. "We don’t pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That’s where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena." Last week, the mother of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack made a similar appeal to the Romney campaign, asking the Republican to stop mentioning her son's name on the campaign trail. "I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda," Barbara Doherty, whose son, Glen was killed in Benghazi, said. "It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/14/chris-stevens-libya_n_1965009.html Edited October 16, 2012 by Joe_the_6_pack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Clinton Cuomo 2016 Bill/Hill have decided that her best bet in 2016 is coming off a second term from Obama rather than a first term from Romney. Regardless of who wins, the economy will probably be in better shape 4 years from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 The father of Christopher Stephens, the United States ambassador who was killed in the attack in Libya last month, said Saturday that it would be "abhorrent" for his son's death to be politicized in the presidential campaign. In an interview with Bloomberg News, Jan Stevens said the attack on Benghazi and the ensuing investigation has no place in the upcoming election. "The security matters are being adequately investigated," Stevens, who is getting briefings from the State Department on the investigation, said. "We don't pretend to be experts in security. It has to be objectively examined. That's where it belongs. It does not belong in the campaign arena." Last week, the mother of a Navy SEAL killed in the attack made a similar appeal to the Romney campaign, asking the Republican to stop mentioning her son's name on the campaign trail. "I don't trust Romney. He shouldn't make my son's death part of his political agenda," Barbara Doherty, whose son, Glen was killed in Benghazi, said. "It's wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama." http://www.huffingto..._n_1965009.html Nothing that shows this administration in a bad light has a place in this election, not the inadequate security or the subsequent cover-up of a terrorist act. It is unpatriotic to show the POTUS as incompetent and a liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Not sure about underestimating her but it looks like she's a go for 2016. By underestimating her, I simply meant that folks are making it sound like she is simply a pawn between Bill Clinton and the current president. I honestly don't think she will run in 2016, no matter what the circumstances. If she were to win, she would be 69 by the time she took office...that would make either her or Ronald Reagan the oldest first term president. I suppose it is possible, but I believe it when she says she has no interest in running for president again. Nothing that shows this administration in a bad light has a place in this election, not the inadequate security or the subsequent cover-up of a terrorist act. It is unpatriotic to show the POTUS as incompetent and a liar. Yet, when the moderator in the last election asked some pretty tough (fair) questions of Joe Biden, right wingers titty-babied that she was in the pocket of the "Chicago" machine. And you do realize the irony of your statement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) "Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took responsibility Monday night for any security failures leading up to the consulate attack last month in Libya that killed an the American ambassador, but she seemed to push back against claims of a cover-up, blaming the "fog of war" for the Obama administration's shifting explanations for the attack." Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz29QBVmmje Yes...the 'fog of war' that lasted nearly two weeks after this incident. The 'fog of war' that everyone knew was BS. The 'fog of war' video that had nothing to do with a pre-meditated attack. The 'fog of war' that the Libyan president said 'had nothing to do with a video.' The 'fog of election season war' that prevented any reasonable conclusions. Except she didn't exactly fall on her sword. "I'm responsible for the State Department, for the more than 60,000 people around the world. Uh, the decisions about security assets are made by security professionals. " According to the testimony in the Congressional Hearing, the decisions about security WEREN'T made by security personnel. Nordstrom requested additional personnel and was denied. That doesn't sound like 'letting the security professionals make the decisions about security.' [EDITED to correct HC's quote.] Edited October 16, 2012 by Taro T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 By underestimating her, I simply meant that folks are making it sound like she is simply a pawn between Bill Clinton and the current president. I honestly don't think she will run in 2016, no matter what the circumstances. If she were to win, she would be 69 by the time she took office...that would make either her or Ronald Reagan the oldest first term president. I suppose it is possible, but I believe it when she says she has no interest in running for president again. Yet, when the moderator in the last election asked some pretty tough (fair) questions of Joe Biden, right wingers titty-babied that she was in the pocket of the "Chicago" machine. And you do realize the irony of your statement? WTF are you talking about? Read what I was commenting about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Looks like everybody is thinking the same thing I was when I first heard the news. That is, somewhere Bill Clinton is fuming and will one day get his packback for his wife being forced to fall on the sword like this. You would think getting someone to take the fall for him would help Obama, but I'm not sure that's the case. Everyone already sees Obama as unable to accept responsibility for anything that doesn't polish his halo. He is increasingly seen by indepedents as the Blamer-in-Chief. I know that sounds partisan, but even liberals know he has no nutsack. Letting someone take the blame for Benghazi murders is one thing. Letting a woman take the blame is a little different. Obama needs women, and he already started losing them after Uncle Joe's embarrassing stint last week...now he's letting a woman take the fall for the terror attack in Benghazi. Let's face it...Democratic women love Hillary like lesbians love tennis matches in Palm Springs. Not to mention, when you clear away the dust, the problem isn't just the security issue, but rather...where did Susan Rice get her info before hitting the talk show circuit? That is the connection being made more and more, and if people keep asking that question, Hillary is going to come out of as something of a martyr. And lastly, Obama made the mistake of saying in SF that Al Qaeda is "on its heels." Expect that comment to get lambasted tonight with "Regardless of who takes the blame for Benghazi, the reality is that we're not safer today than we were four years ago and Al Qaeda is very strong." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 WTF are you talking about? Read what I was commenting about. Sorry 3rd... I know what you were commenting on...those are personal points from relatives of the dead... Maybe I was reading more into your comment than you meant...I truly apologize. I just keep reading (here especially) that the president receives no critiscism, and anything that casts him in a negative light gets hidden..and I just don' think that is really true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFanM.D. Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Except she didn't exactly fall on her sword. "I'm responsible for the State Department, for the more than 60,000 people around the world. Uh, the decisions about security assets are made by security professionals. " According to the testimony in the Congressional Hearing, the decisions about security WEREN'T made by security personnel. Nordstrom requested additional personnel and was denied. That doesn't sound like 'letting the security professionals make the decisions about security.' [EDITED to correct HC's quote.] You're right. Falling on the sword would imply someone actually 'takes a hit.' Hillary isn't going anywhere. The spin you pointed out is a nice out for everyone. BO gets to distance himself from this mess in the debate tonight because "as you heard Hillary say...I was not directly involved....." Hillary 'takes responsibility' in a very nebulous manner in the midst of this 'fog' and, theoretically, four years from now she is no worse off. They can complain about/rely on the 'initial confusion' to a very small degree. To extend that beyond 24 to maybe 48 hours is disingenuous. Obama may not have been 'directly involved' immediately..... but he and his team were apologizing and video promoting afterwards. Susan Rice was told what to say....and they weren't her words. Obama's entire motivation seems to have been one of trying to make this look like anything but a terrorist attack. Politicizing indeed...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I just keep reading (here especially) that the president receives no critiscism, and anything that casts him in a negative light gets hidden..and I just don' think that is really true. I'm certain you probably tire of this comment, but it's an obvious observation: If four Americans were murdered in a terrorist attack on US soil under a Republican president, ever newspaper and network news would be camped out at the WH and Susan Rice's house. It's just a fact. Obama is getting a flyer, and it unfortunately won't hold out for long. Don't be surprised if one of those canned attendees tonight has the guts to ask Obama why he refuses to accept responsibility. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 You're right. Falling on the sword would imply someone actually 'takes a hit.' Hillary isn't going anywhere. The spin you pointed out is a nice out for everyone. BO gets to distance himself from this mess in the debate tonight because "as you heard Hillary say...I was not directly involved....." Hillary 'takes responsibility' in a very nebulous manner in the midst of this 'fog' and, theoretically, four years from now she is no worse off. They can complain about/rely on the 'initial confusion' to a very small degree. To extend that beyond 24 to maybe 48 hours is disingenuous. Obama may not have been 'directly involved' immediately..... but he and his team were apologizing and video promoting afterwards. Susan Rice was told what to say....and they weren't her words. Obama's entire motivation seems to have been one of trying to make this look like anything but a terrorist attack. Politicizing indeed...... Well, the lack of taking responsibility taking responsibility was straight out of Janet Reno's Branch Davidian mea culpa. It'll be interesting to see where this story takes its next turn. The Spanish train bombing cost Aznar an all but certain election win. How much of that electoral decision was due to his government initially blaming Basque separatists? And they only misidentified the true suspects for a day or so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I'm certain you probably tire of this comment, but it's an obvious observation: If four Americans were murdered in a terrorist attack on US soil under a Republican president, ever newspaper and network news would be camped out at the WH and Susan Rice's house. It's just a fact. Obama is getting a flyer, and it unfortunately won't hold out for long. Don't be surprised if one of those canned attendees tonight has the guts to ask Obama why he refuses to accept responsibility. Candy Crawley gets to pick which questions to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) Not sure about underestimating her but it looks like she's a go for 2016. Not if she cops to this debacle. You're right. Falling on the sword would imply someone actually 'takes a hit.' Hillary isn't going anywhere. The spin you pointed out is a nice out for everyone. BO gets to distance himself from this mess in the debate tonight because "as you heard Hillary say...I was not directly involved....." Hillary 'takes responsibility' in a very nebulous manner in the midst of this 'fog' and, theoretically, four years from now she is no worse off. They can complain about/rely on the 'initial confusion' to a very small degree. To extend that beyond 24 to maybe 48 hours is disingenuous. Obama may not have been 'directly involved' immediately..... but he and his team were apologizing and video promoting afterwards. Susan Rice was told what to say....and they weren't her words. Obama's entire motivation seems to have been one of trying to make this look like anything but a terrorist attack. Politicizing indeed...... Barry can try to displace the blame, but all Romney needs to do is mention that he skipped daily security briefings. Edited October 16, 2012 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 This is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of thing you're seeing all over the social media world today: Behind every strong woman is....Barack Obama. Bad move, Barry. Bad move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 (edited) This is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of thing you're seeing all over the social media world today: Behind every strong woman is....Barack Obama. Bad move, Barry. Bad move. Funny part is she said this in 2008 during the demo primary. "I know that we can get on top of this, but it's going to require strong presidential leadership — it's going to require a President who knows from day one you have to run a government and manage the economy," Hillary Clinton added, using the flailing economy to hit Obama. "The buck stops in the Oval Office." http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/hillary-clinton-to-obama-in-2008-the-buck-stops Edited October 16, 2012 by erynthered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 This is what I'm talking about. This is the kind of thing you're seeing all over the social media world today: Behind every strong woman is....Barack Obama. Bad move, Barry. Bad move. You expect Obama to do his job? He's too busy keeping his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts