More so than even most of his colleagues, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is not a fan of doing his homework. Occasionally, this causes the far-right senator some embarrassment -- and this morning offered a classic example.
At a Senate hearing on the Benghazi attack, Johnson clearly had a political goal, hoping to use the discussion to score cheap points by focusing on the intelligence community's preliminary talking points from mid-September. For the senator, the fact that some of the early details were incorrect is still critically important. For Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Johnson's pettiness is annoying.
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this. The fact is that people were trying, in real time, to get to the best information."
There was some talk on the right that Clinton wanted to get out of testifying, and some Republicans even accused her of faking a serious head injury so as to avoid participating in hearings on the violence in Benghazi.
After watching the hearing this morning, it looks to me like she's more than prepared to respond to whatever the administration's critics want to throw at her.
Leave a Comment:
The Republicans will never let this go as a wedge issue, they have worked the base too hard to ever admit it is malarkey. Count on 20% of Americans swallowing this nonsense...
Lebowsky, do you think the Sec of State should have been informed about security requests by US personnel in Libya given all that had been going on? I do.
Here's what I heard:
Rep: We need to know what happened so we can prevent this again.
SoS: We need to move forward so this does not happen again.
Rep: The Americans were mislead.
Dem: The Americans were mislead about weapons of mass destruction, too.
Yada, yada, yada,...no progress, no solving of problems...typical Washington.
And here is the textbook definition of "false equivalency."
Let's set aside that your premise of the debate (and the above testimony) over Benghazi is just flat out wrong (misinterpreted, inferred incorrectly, your choice...).
To suggest that lying over weapons of mass destruction that never existed as a pretext to military action and making an erroneous report on early actions on an embassy attack are equivalent is flat. out. ludicrous.
The same level of ludicrous that is met by just about every other right wing attack point these days.
No as to your interpretation of the exchange. I don't think the right is looking for answers to what happened so that it doesn't happen again. They're looking for a political target on whom to pin Benghazi. And they want Clinton to fall on her sword.
Perhaps Congress might consider looking in a mirror as they have time and again made cuts to intelligence concerns that would have helped prevent an incident like Benghazi. But that wouldn't make as much political hay, would it? Self-reflection by hypocrites never does.
RobDon: Those requests were for the Embassy in Tripoli, not the Benghazi Consulate. Should the SOS be aware of everything? Sure, it's real easy for anyone to say that since we don't run the State Department and know of what it takes to do that job. The Republicans have a surplus of Monday Morning Quarterbacks who are also willing to fudge facts to push narratives, and you seem like you approve of those tactics by your posts IMHO.
Of course you mean 27%.
With all due respect. In response to RobDon's comment about the Sec of State being informed about security requests, if you paid any attention at all you would know that funding for embassy security comes from CONGRESS and Congress alone, and more funding was requested, however Congressional REPUBLICANS decided that due to the deficit they were going to vote NO to providing additional funding for Embassy security. With that being said, if we want to prevent this from happening again their are several security measures we can and should take but it starts with the funding. Congressional Republicans have some balls to defund Embassy security and then point the finger at Democrats. This shouldn't be a political issue at all.
Treating RobDon as if he has the brains to comprehend an argument is a fool's errand. He long ago flunked the IQ test low enough to become an Official Wingnut.
After Secretary Clinton's testimony, I came to the conclusion that the Tea Partiers don't know how to manage a country such as ours. Yes, we have debts & a deficit but there are things we still need to pay for for upkeep in our intrastructures &, most importantly, the safety & security for our brave diplomats. I had no idea the marines are only to protect the buildings & classified materials. It is the utmost importance we protect our ambassadors...especially in unsecure countries.
Lys5486 (and DesertBruin), I did pay attention. I also paid attention when Deputy Asst Charlene Lamb said money or resources were not a factor in making a decision on security in Benghazi. Do you say that she was lying?
Lebowsky, I think both sides are playing games and dancing around the truth for political purposes...would you agree?
I-klakring, I agree. Part of the point of finding out what happens is that State Department official Charlene Lamb testified that money was not an issue in making the decision over security, they had all the resources they needed at their disposal.
This was the exchange between her and Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.).
how right you are , its the only thing they have and they will drive it into the ground or until they look stupid again .. its what the far right live for..
Have we gotten an autopsy on the Ambassador? How about seeing the video from the drone? Why did the State Dept make Rice lie, and why is Clinton still doing it? Were Americans killed with American guns?
Boy, it's a good thing Obama, Holder, and Clinton are there to tell us what we need to know.... nothing.
Annie Oakley: Way to stay classy there fella. Nothing says respect for the families of those killed quite like spouting unfounded conspiracy theories... I'm sure they fully support your wet dreams about conservatives winning the day, thats what it's all about, right...
It seems the repubs are rather transparently fishing for sound bites for the 2016 election season.
Here you go Blanks AND ALL YOU OTHER TROLLS ...here's some other Embassy related stuff to get your pantyhose in a knot about
Seven U.S. Embassies And Consulates Were Attacked Under George W. Bush
2002: U.S. Consulate In Karachi, Pakistan, Attacked; 10 Killed, 51 Injured.
2004: U.S. Embassy Bombed In Uzbekistan.
2004: Gunmen Stormed U.S. Consulate In Saudi Arabia.
2006: Armed Men Attacked U.S. Embassy In Syria.
2007: Grenade Launched Into U.S. Embassy In Athens. From The New York Times:
2008: Rioters Set Fire To U.S. Embassy In Serbia.
2008: Ten People Killed In Bombings At U.S. Embassy In Yemen.
CARTER
1979: Iranians Seized Hostages After Storming U.S. Embassy In Tehran.
1979: Pakistanis Attacked And Burned U.S. Embassy In Islamabad.
1979: U.S. Embassy In Tripoli Was Attacked And Burned.
REAGAN
1983: Bomb Blast At U.S. Embassy In Beirut Killed More Than 60, Including 17 Americans.
1983, bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon:
1983: Car Bomb Damaged U.S. Embassy In Kuwait.
1987: Car Bomb Exploded Outside U.S. Embassy In Italy.
GEORGE H.W. BUSH
1990: Palestinian Guerrillas Attempted To Attack U.S. Embassy In Tel Aviv. From a June 21, 1990, New York Times article:
CLINTON
1998: Terrorist Bombs Near U.S. Embassies In Kenya, Tanzania Injured More Than 1,000 And Killed More Than 60, Including Eight Americans. From an August 7, 1998, Associated Press article:
http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/09/14/krauthammer-whitewashes-bushs-history-to-bash-o/189890
The far right wingnuts have to push this issue. There's not much there that goes beyond the normal inability of bureaucracies to move information through the system quickly and take rapid action.
Rand Paul, who has never run anything bigger than an ophthalmology practice, has no idea what managing something as big and immobile as the State Department entails. His over-the-top comments during today's hearing demonstrate again why nobody with any intelligence takes him seriously.
Lebowsky Dude has it right. They've pushed way too many chips into the middle of the table while playing this hand. With that kind of investment, they can't afford to let it go. They'll just continue to look more and more petty, partisan, and mean-spirited.
Another useless t-nut Koch puppet. These guys do not have the intelligence it requires to do the job..period!
"They'll just continue to look more and more petty, partisan, and mean-spirited."
Just like the trolls on this site!
The GOP just will not stop. What is their approval rating of them? What is the approval rating of the Tea Party? Today, they are just proving their point... they are completely out of touch with the GLOBAL PICTURE.
So, they didn't pass the funding in the House, as part of the Sandy bill? And, this was for the 29 recommendations that HRC immediately acted on. So, WHO took it out of the bill? Democrats? GOP? Tea Party?
Yes, we lost 4 people. Awful. So, what about all those lost in the wars we didn't need to be in? What about all the lives lost in mass shootings? Apparently, they have not mattered. It is moments like this, where the USA looks weak and our enemies are laughing at us.
To respond to DesertBruin about WMD's. It is your contention that Iraq did NOT have WMD's correct? You make it sound as if Bush was the first one to come up with that notion and he created it out of thin air. May I refresh your memory? http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
Even Hillary Clinton stated, ""In the four years since the inspectors left,
intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical
and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear
program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including
al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam
Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical
warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
So I don't think it is fair to say that the WMD's didn't exist. In fact, Clintons security advisor stated ""He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
So it is fair to say there was a good case to be made that they existed.
But let me ask this. Let's put this same question up about the newtown shooting. At this point, what difference does it make that the shooting happened? Sounds kind of stupid doesn't it? That is how Clinton sounded.
Hogwash! There was never a valid case that they existed! You're just another right-wing flim-flam artist.
As the GOP tries desperately score political points because terrorists managed to kill four Americans, the massacre of American citizens due to gun violence continues.
The right screams that there is no way to stop the slaughter right here in our American cities but in some magical universe find the gall to blame Americans for terrorist killings on the other side of the planet.
If you want to find out where the GOP stands on an issue simply flip over a rock.
Excellent point. And Ron Johnson whose first fun for office was as the tea party member from Wisconsin reads his tea party talking points 4 dead in Benghazi what an outrage. Sandy Hook Elementary? No comment
As far as Sen Johnson is concerned, the kids at Sandy Hook are the price someone else pays for his freedom to own an armory. And all the other people who have died from gunshots are, too.
Great point Pat .
another minor detail....as of last Friday
926: US gun death toll since Sandy Hook
Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/world-news/926-us-gun-death-toll-since-sandy-hook-16262991.html#ixzz2IpIQTUec
Do they count?
dkm,
Bingo! I have said as much myself.
to Sick And Effen Tired: First of all the number 926 is an estimate and NOT based on fact. Secondly, with Roe V Wade just celebrating 40 years, why do liberals feel that killing a child in the womb is okay but killing one that is born is not? Wait, I know the answer. Because the chances are that the child killed in the womb will be a minority; in the United States, abortion kills minority children at more than 3 times the rate of non-Hispanic, white children. The rate is even worse for black children.
Lest you feel these claims are an exaggeration, consider the numbers. According to the most recent census data available for race (2000), black women make up 12.3% of the female population in America, but accounted for 36.4% of all U.S. abortions in 2006 – that according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total. Their most recent numbers are from 2008. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions in 2008, though they made up just 12.5% of the female population in 2000. The CDC lists the percentage of Hispanic abortions in 2006 at 20.1%. Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic, white women, who make up 69% of America's female population, but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions (36.1% according to the CDC).
Abortion is eliminating minority children in the United States at a staggering rate.
Every day in America, an average of 3,315 human beings lose their lives to abortion. Based on the percentages above, between 666-829 of those babies are Hispanic, between 1,193-1,197 are white, and between 995-1,207 are black.
Again, I guess the question remains; "What difference at this point does it make" how they are killed? Inside the womb, outside the womb, a life is still being taken. But liberal logic says that it is okay to kill a minority as long as you do it inside the womb. The case could be made that liberals are racist on this alone.
You have a truly sick mind.
All of your deranged ramblings aside, a fertilized egg is not a child. An acorn isn't a tree.
Every sperm is a potential life, making male masturbation murder by the millions. But I doubt you've retired your lotion and tissues.
Johnson is a jackass and proves it over and over again. Rand Paul is a petty little 'player'..he would have 'fired' Clinton? LORD we would like to 'fire' YOU for not doing your job and using these 'hearings' to play your petty games. WHERE WERE YOU on security in Benghazi? WHERE WERE YOU on appropriating money for it? And TURKEY? What? Were you trying to show some arms for hostage crap? What WAS that? And the 'worse attack since 9/11? Honest to God...talk about trying to get a 'new' talking point out there. I'm surprised he didn't call Obama 'Hitler' and Clinton carrying out his attacks. It is so sad that these fools can't LEARN but just used hackneyed garbage to puff themselves up.
I had a nice glass of well-aged schadenfreude this morning as I watched Senator McNasty pop a vein.
Note to "Wet Start Johnny": It was Obama you lost to in 2008, not Hillary.
He would have lost to Hillary too. He's a loser.
He was a lousy pilot, too.
hey i dont care much for john mcclain's poltics but he served his country and suffered much and as such he deserves our personal respect for his courage as a pow. say what you want about his poltics but do not insult him personally, thank you from a democart till death
Uh, Jerry, I guess you haven't read much about the McCain imprisonment thing have you. A lot of us have served. and I hate to tell you but nobody got any respect from being a Viet Nam soldier. The account of his POW time is not a pretty story. But, at the same time he is not showing any respect for the Secretary of State. So, in my book, if you hate someone, expect that someone to hate you as well.
My grandfather in law was a POW in the battle of the bulge, never got anything more than a medal. I wouldn't believe all McCain tells you, even if he says the sky is blue and the grass is green. He swore he would shut down the border to stop the illegal traffic into Arizona, then proceeded to let those same individuals into the state and did all but shake their hands and welcome them to whatever they wanted. He wants to get rid of the law that the citizens of his state passed to verify legality of those suspected to be here illegally. Wonder how much he's got stashed in an off shore account from the cartels since he's turning a blind eye on all the drug issues in Arizona.
Until anyone in a Republican suit can lay out a clear vision of what is and what the Republican brand thinks ought to be, I will continue to see Republican leaders in the early 21st century as petty fools!
I see a parallel between current Republican policy concerns, and that fool over there at the bus stop without enough change to board the bus that left 10 minutes ago! -Kevo
It sounded, remarkably, like she was telling him he wasn't going anywhere in that car, and to get his homework done.
I have a question for you Sen. Rand Paul. In light of the remarks you made to Secretary Clinton regarding removing her from duty, I would think the fact that your son has endangered the lives of people as well as assaulting people here in North Carolina in two recent incedents, if you should be removed from your job as father and senator because you seem to be failing miserably on both fronts.
I'd also like to know why his 2 arrests have only been playing on our local news and the national media seems to have missed it.
So, does this mean that politican's children are appropriate targets once they turn 18 or 19?
Actually it means that because his father is a seated member of Congress - he gets "special treatment"! Because anyone else's child having done the same thing would have their face all over the media and at least "15 minutes of national notoriety.
The nerve, SMH!
Zora, that is definitely true. True in small town politics as well.
Rand Paul is a little player. Regarding his comment - "if I was president I would have dismissed you from your post". He is delusional to think he would ever be president but then to even think Hillary would consider working for him as Secretary of State is even more so. He is an embarrassment to our country.
The pretend outrage over Benghazi pales in comparison to Iraq, for which they GOP have no outrage or humility.
No one should have died in Tower II.
Nothing in the next 20-30-40 years (or at least in the last 4 with President Obama) can compare to the 4000+ killed over a lie in Iraq 100's of 1000's injured and Billions spent. it is a tragedy that Benghazi happened but to say it is a 'watergate' moment proves that short term memory loss of the GOP is complete.
Luz CanN, nobody should have died PERIOD! 9/11 should never have happened. Who was president when Bin Laden attacked the WTC the first time? George H W Bush. Who was president when Bin Laden attacked it again. George W Bush. Who finally got his ass killed? Barrack Obama and crew, that's who. Neither Bush was man enough to do anything the right way. Saddam was in the cross-hairs of the Seals on more than one occasion during Desert Storm and daddy just didn't have the balls to tell them to pull the trigger. We lost thousands in that war too, and it wasn't even aimed at us, but at Kuwait. When are we going to stop running to fight everyone else's battles and start worrying about our own soil and those in need here?? NEVER so long as the GOP gets their way. They don't want to bring our boys home. That way they can say Obama blew more money on that war that their good old boy Bush started. Seems to be an ongoing theme there. Bush picks the fight and leaves the mess for the next guy to finish, pay for and clean up after, not to mention take the blame for.
Senator Mcain once again embarrassed himself. At one point he commented that you don't take an RPG to a protest. Wrong again. I have seen Tea Party cultists wear weapons en masse to protests. I also read an article where people were upset because a gun job was carrying his assault rifle slung over his shoulder in I believe a JC Pennies store. I must have missed the part where the local militia in charge of security cut and ran at the first sign of problems. GOP is not really so grand these days.
HillbilleeBill, please provide source of "weapons en masse" at Tea Party protests.
Seriously? Just go type "tea party gun" into Google and see what comes up. Look at all those pictures....
Here are three links to start. You will find many more if you just look.
I know facts are hard for you to swallow, Robbie, but TRY!
http://helenair.com/news/local/tea-party-encourages-guns-at-capitol-rally/article_f01b1b8a-4676-11e0-bbad-001cc4c002e0.html
http://ezkool.com/2011/01/teaparty-leader-sees-nothing-wrong-with-guns-at-political-rallies/
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/01/03/75694/guns-tea-party/?mobile=nc
Try the news.
Duno about 'en masse' but they certainly bring guns..
http://restoretheconstitution.wordpress.com/2010/01/10/armed-and-civilized-protesters-rally-against-obama-policies/
Take your pick there are plenty of twits to chose from.
Seen it mentioned several times on tv and in local newspaper but here are a couple of links.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/05/us-montana-teaparty-idUSTRE7240EH20110305
http://newmexicoindependent.com/43847/video-alamogordo-tea-party-protesters-pack-heat
Maybe en masse was the wrong wording.
Thanks. Notice I did not deny the fact, I wanted to see sources. In honesty, there were lots more than I had originally thought, so I did learn something new.
I was glad to see those with yellow tags verifing they were not loaded. While I certainly support gun ownership rights, I don't think this was a great idea.
I guess my only additional point would be these, too, were "planned" events...I think the accusation from McCain was "People don't bring RPG's and mortars to spontaneous protests."
HillbilleeBill, I saw enough to thing "en masse" was not a stretch. I appreciate your comment though. I appreciate the post by the others as well...thanks.
We do know that there were armed militias all over Libya and all around Benghazi. Why is it so hard to believe that they had shown up at a protest with their weapons when there were protests going on all over the world in protest over the You Tube video. So, it turned out that maybe they had already planned to attack the consulate. But at the time it was hardly implausible that it was part of a protest.
The Republicans wanted to make the Democrats look like they had a National security failure during the election because National security was supposed to be their issue, but the Obama administration's record did not give them much to complain about. Thus they seized on Benghazi as the only straw they had, and now, just as they cannot admit that they lost the election, they will not let go of their straw.
If they think they are making the SOS look bad, they are mistaken.
A spontaneous demonstration right here in the USA did indeed involve large numbers of weapons.
I speak, of course, of Kent State.
Day, as sad and uncalled for as the Kent State shootings were, it was not the protestors who came with weapons. The protest where the shootings took place was not spontaneous, but planned.
Whoosh!
Stupid comments. You can't prevent something from happening again unless you know what happened in the first place. So, yes, it is improtant to know if it was a "protest" or "guys out for a walk."
The first step to prevention should be what happened. How in the world do you even begin to prevent something from happening again without being honest about what happened in the first place?
RobDon: Why the pretend games? Everyone knows what happened. We are months out, and investigations have already happened. Do you simply suspend intellectual thought in the case of demagogue politics? Nobody has been found to be dishonest in this, so it's disengenuous to suggest that. You seem to be suggesting there is a coverup, when no evidence thusfar proves that.
Lebowsky, I do agree that games are being played, on both sides...for political reasons...that's a given.
I do think the Sec of State should have been informed about requests for security from US personnel on the ground in Libya given all that had transpired. Don't you? And we don't know why she was not. What do you do to fix that if you don't know why it happened? There are several issues similar to this one that maybe the public doesn't need to know, but someone definitely does.
The senator wasn't asking HC about what happened, he was asking about the real-time interpretations of what was happening at the time it was happening. He is implying forcefully that somehow they should have had perfect knowledge within minutes of an event.
Even today, we know that the people who planned and/or participated in the attack stated that they were retaliating against that anti-Islamic video, and that they were organizing some local people to stage a protest as cover for their assault. So those early reports weren't all that far off. Further, those early reports were not materially wrong in a way that impacted our immediate responses.
RobDon: We do know why she was not informed: it was not part of normal procedure. Such requessts went to trained security personnel. Do we need to change procedures? Maybe. But do we need to have a SOS who micromanages everything. Delegating responsibility is supposed to be a sign of good management.
Did you even read your own post? Did you see the part about "It (sic) our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, senator." Don't you think that this comment makes it clear that, in fact, they are trying to figure out what happened, which makes your quibble ridiculous?
I've found that it helps to read a post over once or twice before hitting the post button. It prevents one from looking like a fool on many occasions.
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Abraham Lincoln
dkm, I did read my post. I included her second line to keep it in context. If you think I'm contradicting myself then you must think Sec. Clinton contradicted herself. My point was that it does matter what happened and if it was a protest or guys walking down the street. That was my point.
bflynch, I agree. My only additional point that given all that was going on in Libya, the Secretary should have been at the least providing oversight to security of American personnel even if not micromanaging. It was by far the most volatile place where we had officials.
RobDon: Thats complete malarkey. Yemen for example was considered way more dangerous before 9/11/12 than Libya. How about Iraq? Perhaps you should read up on what the SOS job entails, because diplomacy is the main job. If you would like to return to haphazard foreign policy, then vote for another Bush in 2016...
Lebowsky, notice my qualifier "where we had officials.' We had diplomatic officials openly stationed in Libya. That was not the case in Yemen or Iraq, was it?
Lol! Mr. False Equivalence is really squirming!
RobDon: We have an Embassy in both Yemen and Iraq, and with an Embassy come "officials". If I am mistaken, let me know...
Lebowsky, you are completely correct...my error. I have an acquaintance who use to do humanitarian work in Yemen until he was ordered out by his sponsoring agency. I just assumed we no longer had an embassy there. As far as Iraq...I was thinking Iran. No excuse, though. I was wrong.
Hey guys let's not forget Egypt was happening right there at the same time. While the Congress is doing their best to 'blame Hillary' for 'not knowing every single request' this little topic is NOT coming up. They KNOW what happened. They are just posturing before Hill goes off into the sunset...for awhile.
Rachel---PLEASE dress down Rand Paul in your show tonight and let him know that MANY people are DISGUSTED with him. Secretary of State Clinton probably has done more work in one month than he has done in his whole political life.
MCcain did'nt really care what her answer was to his question. He just wanted to get his shot of revenge against President Obama. Ron Johnson is an idiot. Rand Paul will never be able to fire anybody as President. Unless its President of the Tea Party. Thanks to Dick Durbin for the dig about WMD in Iraq.
What I saw for the most part was lots of class versus little or no class, especially in the face-off with Rand Paul.
Did you notice Paul's face while the Secretary was giving her opening address? He looked like someone who had just seen his favorite talking points going up in smoke. And he did not have the good sense to keep his mouth shut afterwards: he just spit out the smoke.
Yeah, he didn't have a back-up plan for his posturing. No surprise. The repubs claim to be concerned about money, but have no problem wasting both time and money when it comes to their idiot wind.
Hillary rocks. That is all.
I wonder why the fact that the GOP CUT security spending at our embassies has been left out of the discussion.
That was indeed the elephant in the room that was conveniently ignored.
It did come out toward the end of the hearing that the State Department's request to transfer money already appropriated for other uses by the Dept. has not been granted by the Congress and as a result some of the proposals have not yet been implemented for lack of funding.
Didn't you hear Rand Paul? They weren't spending the money they had they way HE wanted! He didn't think they NEEDED more money...now if HE were Prez...
One of my friends (republican) stated that no way would Hillary ever be elected President because of Benghazi. I'm like. Really? I mean REALLY?
Did GW Bush get accused and grilled over the 911 attacks by democrats? I'm so tired of the Republitards. Can't we send them somewhere? How about we give them texASS? Hell, I'll move out of the state and we can give them texASS.
How about sending them to Libya.
I think that they would be happier in the Central African Republic
Secretary Clinton: "Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It our job to figure out what happened..."
Surely you all can detect self-contradictory dissembling when you see it. Let me reduce it for you: "What difference does it make what happened? Our job is to find out what happened!"
Go back to flying your imaginary spaceship, you imaginary wingnut.
Not a very stout defense of Ms. Clinton, TC.
She avoided answering a question by being indignant: "What difference does it make (about what happened), our job is to find out what happened!"
If you think about it with a little logical sensibility, you'd be laughing like I am at the weakness of her response. With a little more airplay, this could rank up there with "I voted for it before I voted against it."
Sec. Clinton's version: "What difference does it make what happened? Our job is to find out what happened!"
I'm laughing at the weakness of your attempt to make the Secretary of State look bad.
Wow...OK let me break it down. What difference does it make if it was 1 or 2...as long as we find out which ONE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND ENGLISH or just want to attack?
Let me also break it down:
The question was about why it seemed so difficult to ascertain that the killings did NOT arise out of a spontaneous protest (in response to the YouTube video). The Senator posits that this sort of information could have been obtained simply by talking with the evacuees (who were at the consulate). Yet many days later we were being told the "best available evidence" pointed to the incident as being a spontaneous protest to a YouTube video.
Sec. Clinton's response was a dodge. She spoke generally about how information was developing, how it was fluid, and how "the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on." SHE'S TALKING ABOUT THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION NOT GETTING EASILY OBTAINED FACTS BECAUSE THEY DON"T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH SOME OTHER PROCESS GOING ON! Shouldn't the White House and the Secretary of State be at the top of ANY PROCESS going on to determine what happened? But they don't want to INTERFERE? She's Secretary of State and SHE doesn't want to interfere?
When pressed on the issue of simply speaking with the evacuees about whether there was a protest, Sec. Clinton begins to raise her voice and says. "Was it because of a protest, or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they'd go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?"
Notice she still hasn't meaningfully answered the question as to why the YOUTUBE PROTEST STORY ever surfaced, nor why it was not easily determined that protests were not occurring prior to the raid. She brushes of inquiries about the YouTube video by saying someone else is looking into it.
What I'd like to see is a little more accountability and straightforward answers and a little less shuffling, shifting, dodging, looking down, and faux indignation.
What I'd like to see is fewer or, better yet, no trolls here to waste our time with their hogwash.
CLINTON: "With all due respect..."
TRANSLATION: "Ron, you ignorant slut."
I had similar thoughts. Whenever someone says, "With all due respect ...", it means that the person being spoken to doesn't deserve any respect at all. Such is the case here.
McConnell and Rand Paul, both from Kentucky. I think Kentucky needs to sit in time-out; it is obvious they need to think really long and hard about who they choose to represent them. I mean - Does the electorate there grow up sniffing glue, making meth and eating a diet of paint chips? I sincerely do hope Rand Paul is the Republican Party nominee in 2016, it will be the final nail in the coffin for this sad chapter (Republican Party) in American political life. He makes Sarah Palin look like Einstein.
What do you expect from 10 generations of inbreeding (and in Paul's case, carpetbaggery)?
These guys stay in office due to Gerrymandering? I know it happens in a lot of other places. Hard for me to reconcile too. I have spent time in KY and the people are great. Don't know but maybe the people of KY are making bad choices because of the local radio. Here in AL there are a couple of Christian FM radio stations that (every time I check in) are continually spewing lies and hatred for anything Obama, liberal or democratic. It's really hard for me to understand cause I was raised thinking Christ was the ultimate in peace and love vice ignorance and hate.
You got the Kentucky electorate about right. Next to Kansas they some of the lowest information voters in the country. Rand Paul and Mitch McConnell are embarrassments.
HillbillleeBill: Senate seats cannot be gerrymandered. Senators are elected by state.
You are right to be offended by the so called Christian FM radio stations that spew hate and ignorance. I too thought Christianity was supposed to be about love: faith, hope and love (charity) and the greatest of these is love (charity). Hate, lies, and dispair come from Satan, the enemy of God, who is love, light and truth. What ever happened to the triumph of Grace over Law?
Alas, I live in KY and have to endure these bloviating ignoramuses. I live in a decidedly blue area, but the majority of the state is, well, very rural and willfully ignorant.
Paul's theater today and his lack of respect towards an obviously superior person in terms of intellect and character is almost as shameful as his fellow senator's outrageous fundraising email about the 2nd amendment and the government coming for peoples' guns, shamelessly preying on weak minded, fearful people.
Both of these vile people disgust me.
NOTE TO NATIONAL DEMOCRATS: WE NEED HELP AND MONEY TO TOPPLE THESE TWO CLOWNS!!!!!!
Ron Johnson is a total embarrassment to the State of Wisconsin. How on earth we elected this fool over Russ Feingold beats me! Hopefully we'll realize our mistake when Johnson comes up for reelection.
Wisconsin has a lot of embarrassment to deal with. Where did any of all those Republican nutbags come from? There aren't that many rural morons in the state, are there?
TC, you would be surprised. I used to live in upstate Wisconsin south of Rhinelander, and the local people weren't anything to brag about. Many of them had never left the county they were born in, and even more had never left the state. There was a suggestion yesterday that part of the reason the Ayn Randers were the way they are is because they had never been anywhere different from their own community. That sort of defines rural Wisconsonites.
When there is a tavern at every county road intersection, sometimes two, you know that the people aren't thoughtfully involved in the world around them.
Look how they waste our taxpaying dollars.
Imagine if they were this tenacious about the accumulating CO2 in our atmosphere...imagine if they were this relentless about alternative fuels...
Imagine.
On 9/11/12, 4 Americans died in a terrorist attack in a war zone in a foreign country. To the GOP this represents a massive failure of, well, of something, and they want an investigation that "goes all the way up to the president."
On 9/11/01, almost 3000 Americans died in coordinated terrorist attacks within the United States. Republicans have spent the last 11 years desperately blocking any and all investigations into this massive failure of national security. The (then) President testified privately and off-the-record to a toothless "commission". Move along, nothing to see here.
Not to mention that our Department of Defense was attacked and no investigation into how in the world THAT happened. The plane even circled the Pentegon first. Mind blowing! Talk about coverup.
Senator Johnson is using the same tactics that Hannity and O'Reilly use in their nightly show on Fox News. You ask your guest a question, then interrupt them when they try to answer. They keep the conversation slanted in the direction they want it to go. They have an agenda, and it's to make the Democrats look bad.
You doubt this? Just listen to these two clowns this evening. Hannity was calling the Benghazi incident an "Obama cover-up" the day after it happened, without getting any facts. Fox News MAKES their own news, and creates whatever "facts" they need for a story. The Republicans have tried to use this incident for political gain since the day it happened.
Righty wing nuts do a good job of distraction. They keep saying stuff over and over and eventually a lot of people beleive it. Plus ....look what happened to Dr/Ambasador Rice.
This same clip is running on FoxNews.com...but it reads Clinton loses her cool when asked questions...Fox also doesn't allow for comments on its site so its readers can only consume what they [Fox] cook up.
She actually sounded, well, presidential.
T.'.
I agree!
Why is it, that the republication voted against increased security to our embassy's!