U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (5 Viewers)

[sporthenry]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Looks like the Republicans were not being honest. So can we call a spade a spade that the Republicans are pushing this as a political ploy.

Impeach him.

 

[pantagrapher]

So desperate for a scandal they slipped up.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Looks like the Republicans were not being honest. So can we call a spade a spade that the Republicans are pushing this as a political ploy.

Well I never!

 

[tommyGunZ]

Bigger than Watergate.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Or Iran Contra.

 

[Lutherman2112]

(Watergate + Iran Contra) x 10

 

[Lutherman2112]

HERITAGE ACTION TO HOUSE LEADERS: KEEP FOCUS ON SCANDALS

[SIZE=.8em]MAY 16, 2013[/SIZE]

The Honorable John Boehner
Speaker of the House
H-232, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

The Honorable Eric Cantor
House Majority Leader
H-329, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Speaker Boehner and Leader Cantor:

For the first time, the activities of the Obama administration are receiving a sustained public vetting. Americans’ outrage over Benghazi is amplified by the Internal Revenue Service’s intimidation of conservative grassroots organizations and a cascade of negative headlines. There is the real sense the Obama administration has been less than forthright with the American people, the press and lawmakers.

Recent events have rightly focused the nation’s attention squarely on the actions of the Obama administration. It is incumbent upon the House of Representatives to conduct oversight hearings on those actions, but it would be imprudent to do anything that shifts the focus from the Obama administration to the ideological differences within the House Republican Conference.

To that end, we urge you to avoid bringing any legislation to the House Floor that could expose or highlight major schisms within the conference. Legislation such as the Internet sales tax or the FARRM Act which contains nearly $800 billion in food stamp spending, would give the press a reason to shift their attention away from the failures of the Obama administration to write another “circular firing squad” article.

Make no mistake, principled conservatives will still oppose bad policy if it comes to the floor. Rather than scheduling such legislation for consideration, we urge you to keep the attention focused squarely on the Obama administration. As the public’s trust in their government continues to erode, it is incumbent upon those of us who support a smaller, less intrusive government to lead.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Needham
Chief Executive Officer
Heritage Action for America

 

[BigSteelThrill]

#### AMERICA! Lets strive to do what is in our own self serving political interest. This is about power.

Sincerely,

Michael A. Needham

Chief Executive Officer

Heritage Action for America

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

It's infuriating how terrible Democrats are at this game.

After reviewing the Benghazi e-mails, Republicans made up quotes from the e-mails and fed them to the media.

Now that the e-mails are released and the fabrications have been discovered Dems are relying on the media to do the heavy lifting unwinding the damage.

If the shoe was on the other foot we'd have seen at least 100 Congressional Republicans in front of cameras beating Dems over the head with the clumsy deception.

Have Biden or the new Axelrod go on TV, show the media clips where the press are describing how they were deceived by the Republicans, explain that this has been true every step of the way with Benghazi -- that Republicans are making things up and hoping something will stick in order to damage the President and Secretary of State.

So easy...

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

 

[pantherclub]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

this post here just pretty much shows your mentality and rationalization process.

Nothing more really needs to be said.

 

[Slapdash]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

 

[timschochet]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

No, I'm pretty sure he means it.

The conservative meme on this story keeps changing, but one aspect that has now returned is that it's not just an issue of how the story was reported, but that the government's actions (or, more specifically, inaction) caused the deaths that occurred. Only yesterday, Dennis Prager said, "the main question I want to know is why the ambassador, after he requested more security, was refused by the White House?" Prager is considered one of the more thoughtful conservative talk show hosts. If he is actually asking this question (which, from what I understand, bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of what happened) I can only guess at how the more rabid conservative talk show hosts are handling this.

This morning, I read two editorials by moderate Republican types, George Will and Peggy Noonan. Neither of these offered a shred of evidence that Obama was connected with the three current scandals, but instead attacked Obama for being indirectly responsible- "if he didn't know, then he should have known, and thus his credibility and trustworthiness with the American people is gone," etc.

 

[jamny]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

No, I'm pretty sure he means it.

The conservative meme on this story keeps changing, but one aspect that has now returned is that it's not just an issue of how the story was reported, but that the government's actions (or, more specifically, inaction) caused the deaths that occurred. Only yesterday, Dennis Prager said, "the main question I want to know is why the ambassador, after he requested more security, was refused by the White House?" Prager is considered one of the more thoughtful conservative talk show hosts. If he is actually asking this question (which, from what I understand, bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of what happened) I can only guess at how the more rabid conservative talk show hosts are handling this.

This morning, I read two editorials by moderate Republican types, George Will and Peggy Noonan. Neither of these offered a shred of evidence that Obama was connected with the three current scandals, but instead attacked Obama for being indirectly responsible- "if he didn't know, then he should have known, and thus his credibility and trustworthiness with the American people is gone," etc.

The conservative meme?

 

[DocHolliday]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

No, I'm pretty sure he means it.

The conservative meme on this story keeps changing, but one aspect that has now returned is that it's not just an issue of how the story was reported, but that the government's actions (or, more specifically, inaction) caused the deaths that occurred. Only yesterday, Dennis Prager said, "the main question I want to know is why the ambassador, after he requested more security, was refused by the White House?" Prager is considered one of the more thoughtful conservative talk show hosts. If he is actually asking this question (which, from what I understand, bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of what happened) I can only guess at how the more rabid conservative talk show hosts are handling this.

This morning, I read two editorials by moderate Republican types, George Will and Peggy Noonan. Neither of these offered a shred of evidence that Obama was connected with the three current scandals, but instead attacked Obama for being indirectly responsible- "if he didn't know, then he should have known, and thus his credibility and trustworthiness with the American people is gone," etc.

Obama is amazing. He is not involved or in charge of anything. He did not know anything abou Benghazi before, during, or after the attack. He slept right through it. He still thought the video caused the attack 10 days later.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

No, I'm pretty sure he means it.

The conservative meme on this story keeps changing, but one aspect that has now returned is that it's not just an issue of how the story was reported, but that the government's actions (or, more specifically, inaction) caused the deaths that occurred. Only yesterday, Dennis Prager said, "the main question I want to know is why the ambassador, after he requested more security, was refused by the White House?" Prager is considered one of the more thoughtful conservative talk show hosts. If he is actually asking this question (which, from what I understand, bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of what happened) I can only guess at how the more rabid conservative talk show hosts are handling this.

This morning, I read two editorials by moderate Republican types, George Will and Peggy Noonan. Neither of these offered a shred of evidence that Obama was connected with the three current scandals, but instead attacked Obama for being indirectly responsible- "if he didn't know, then he should have known, and thus his credibility and trustworthiness with the American people is gone," etc.

Obama is amazing. He is not involved or in charge of anything. He did not know anything abou Benghazi before, during, or after the attack. He slept right through it. He still thought the video caused the attack 10 days later.

If only you were as concerned for the thousands of American lives that were wasted from 2001-2008 as you are for the 4 folks who died in the Benghazi tragedy.

 

[timschochet]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

No, I'm pretty sure he means it.

The conservative meme on this story keeps changing, but one aspect that has now returned is that it's not just an issue of how the story was reported, but that the government's actions (or, more specifically, inaction) caused the deaths that occurred. Only yesterday, Dennis Prager said, "the main question I want to know is why the ambassador, after he requested more security, was refused by the White House?" Prager is considered one of the more thoughtful conservative talk show hosts. If he is actually asking this question (which, from what I understand, bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of what happened) I can only guess at how the more rabid conservative talk show hosts are handling this.

This morning, I read two editorials by moderate Republican types, George Will and Peggy Noonan. Neither of these offered a shred of evidence that Obama was connected with the three current scandals, but instead attacked Obama for being indirectly responsible- "if he didn't know, then he should have known, and thus his credibility and trustworthiness with the American people is gone," etc.

The conservative meme?

That phrase wasn't meant in a critical sense. If several people of a particular political philosophy are all repeating the same specific argument, then I think it's safe to use that phrase.

 

[timschochet]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

No, I'm pretty sure he means it.

The conservative meme on this story keeps changing, but one aspect that has now returned is that it's not just an issue of how the story was reported, but that the government's actions (or, more specifically, inaction) caused the deaths that occurred. Only yesterday, Dennis Prager said, "the main question I want to know is why the ambassador, after he requested more security, was refused by the White House?" Prager is considered one of the more thoughtful conservative talk show hosts. If he is actually asking this question (which, from what I understand, bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of what happened) I can only guess at how the more rabid conservative talk show hosts are handling this.

This morning, I read two editorials by moderate Republican types, George Will and Peggy Noonan. Neither of these offered a shred of evidence that Obama was connected with the three current scandals, but instead attacked Obama for being indirectly responsible- "if he didn't know, then he should have known, and thus his credibility and trustworthiness with the American people is gone," etc.

Obama is amazing. He is not involved or in charge of anything. He did not know anything abou Benghazi before, during, or after the attack. He slept right through it. He still thought the video caused the attack 10 days later.

I don't believe I qualify here as an "Obama defender." I think that our leaders should be held responsible for their actions. I also think that, in many cases, leaders should be held responsible for the actions of their subordinates- the more direct the subordinate, the more we can hold the leader responsible. And I believe that, in certain cases, leaders can be held responsible for an action that they should have known about even if they didn't.

None of what we currently know about the Benghazi incident indicates that President Obama falls into ANY of the three types of responsibility I just listed. None of what we know even suggests it. So I'm having real trouble with your statement.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

No, I'm pretty sure he means it.

The conservative meme on this story keeps changing, but one aspect that has now returned is that it's not just an issue of how the story was reported, but that the government's actions (or, more specifically, inaction) caused the deaths that occurred. Only yesterday, Dennis Prager said, "the main question I want to know is why the ambassador, after he requested more security, was refused by the White House?" Prager is considered one of the more thoughtful conservative talk show hosts. If he is actually asking this question (which, from what I understand, bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of what happened) I can only guess at how the more rabid conservative talk show hosts are handling this.

This morning, I read two editorials by moderate Republican types, George Will and Peggy Noonan. Neither of these offered a shred of evidence that Obama was connected with the three current scandals, but instead attacked Obama for being indirectly responsible- "if he didn't know, then he should have known, and thus his credibility and trustworthiness with the American people is gone," etc.

Obama is amazing. He is not involved or in charge of anything. He did not know anything abou Benghazi before, during, or after the attack. He slept right through it. He still thought the video caused the attack 10 days later.

If only you were as concerned for the thousands of American lives that were wasted from 2001-2008 as you are for the 4 folks who died in the Benghazi tragedy.

What if I disagree with the government in both situations? Then what? Hmm, then instead of trying to change the subject and focus on a decision that was made 11 years ago, you'd be forced to acknowledge that Americans were hung out to dry in Benghazi..

Obviously there were mistakes made. Maybe the white house was involved, maybe it was lower level mistakes.. But because there is a possibility your team captain could catch some heat over this, you'd rather everyone stuck their head in the sand..

FFA liberal response in a nut shell:

"maybe mistakes were made, and lives were lost, but that was last year and there are more important things in life, if you want to get to the bottom of it, then you're a wacko"

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Bigger than Watergate.

stealing documents and information = letting important people get killed.. nice

This has to be shtick.

No, I'm pretty sure he means it.

The conservative meme on this story keeps changing, but one aspect that has now returned is that it's not just an issue of how the story was reported, but that the government's actions (or, more specifically, inaction) caused the deaths that occurred. Only yesterday, Dennis Prager said, "the main question I want to know is why the ambassador, after he requested more security, was refused by the White House?" Prager is considered one of the more thoughtful conservative talk show hosts. If he is actually asking this question (which, from what I understand, bears no relation whatsoever to the reality of what happened) I can only guess at how the more rabid conservative talk show hosts are handling this.

This morning, I read two editorials by moderate Republican types, George Will and Peggy Noonan. Neither of these offered a shred of evidence that Obama was connected with the three current scandals, but instead attacked Obama for being indirectly responsible- "if he didn't know, then he should have known, and thus his credibility and trustworthiness with the American people is gone," etc.

Obama is amazing. He is not involved or in charge of anything. He did not know anything abou Benghazi before, during, or after the attack. He slept right through it. He still thought the video caused the attack 10 days later.

I don't believe I qualify here as an "Obama defender." I think that our leaders should be held responsible for their actions. I also think that, in many cases, leaders should be held responsible for the actions of their subordinates- the more direct the subordinate, the more we can hold the leader responsible. And I believe that, in certain cases, leaders can be held responsible for an action that they should have known about even if they didn't.

None of what we currently know about the Benghazi incident indicates that President Obama falls into ANY of the three types of responsibility I just listed. None of what we know even suggests it. So I'm having real trouble with your statement.

 

[timschochet]

Why the shock? I can't stand Obamacare. I don't like his populist speeches, or his refusal to slash corporate tax rates, or his insistence upon more and more regulations. I didn't vote for him either time. Just because I don't buy into these nonsense conspiracy theories, that doesn't make me an Obama supporter.

 

[Bogeys]

Why the shock? I can't stand Obamacare. I don't like his populist speeches, or his refusal to slash corporate tax rates, or his insistence upon more and more regulations. I didn't vote for him either time. Just because I don't buy into these nonsense conspiracy theories, that doesn't make me an Obama supporter.

I would agree you aren't a supporter and have been consistent about the things you disagree with the President about. On the other hand you tend to really give him the benefit of the doubt more so than you do to conservative politicians as far as being ready to believe what he says and not question motives, so I could see how someone might get the impression that you are a supporter.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Why the shock? I can't stand Obamacare. I don't like his populist speeches, or his refusal to slash corporate tax rates, or his insistence upon more and more regulations. I didn't vote for him either time. Just because I don't buy into these nonsense conspiracy theories, that doesn't make me an Obama supporter.

You're a shill for Obama..

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Found some interesting info on the root causes of Benghazi... you can see why the GOP is determined to get to the bottom of it.

Clinton 46--43 ChristieClinton 54--38 Bush                                     Clinton 52--40 Rubio    Clinton 52--41 Paul

 

[pittstownkiller]

Found some interesting info on the root causes of Benghazi... you can see why the GOP is determined to get to the bottom of it.

Clinton 46--43 ChristieClinton 54--38 Bush                                     Clinton 52--40 Rubio    Clinton 52--41 Paul

The root cause of Benghazi is incompetence but keep trying.

 

[matuski]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Looks like the Republicans were not being honest. So can we call a spade a spade that the Republicans are pushing this as a political ploy.

But the real emails are photo-shopped!

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Looks like the Republicans were not being honest. So can we call a spade a spade that the Republicans are pushing this as a political ploy.

So impeach them.

It is genuinely outrageous and disgusting that after the death of our heroes at the hands of terrorists we've so much politicization, starting with the Whote house and extending to the Republican leadership and even to the press. Tim's posting ####in' poll numbers. Really? There seems to be a big push here to not let the facts come out, and that flies in the face of evrything our country is supposed to stand for.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I'm shocked someone called Dennis Prager reasonable.

 

[timschochet]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57584947/wh-benghazi-emails-have-different-quotes-than-earlier-reported/

Looks like the Republicans were not being honest. So can we call a spade a spade that the Republicans are pushing this as a political ploy.

So impeach them.

It is genuinely outrageous and disgusting that after the death of our heroes at the hands of terrorists we've so much politicization, starting with the Whote house and extending to the Republican leadership and even to the press. Tim's posting ####in' poll numbers. Really? There seems to be a big push here to not let the facts come out, and that flies in the face of evrything our country is supposed to stand for.

I posted the poll numbers as a response, not to the story, but to certain people here who stated that this would kill Hillary's chances in 2016. If they're going to bring it up for discussion, then it's only proper to reply.

As for politicization, exactly who is the most responsible for that? Really your self-righteous bit is absurd.

 

[timschochet]

I'm shocked someone called Dennis Prager reasonable.

That was me. I've listened to him off and on for years, and I've formed this conclusion. Lately however I'm beginning to doubt that I was correct. Certainly Prager's style is far more understated than many of the other talk show hosts, and I really admired his theme of "clarity before agreement." But his conclusions are so far removed from what I believe is the mainstream on most issues that probably extreme right wing is a better description.

 

[drummer]

Why the shock? I can't stand Obamacare. I don't like his populist speeches, or his refusal to slash corporate tax rates, or his insistence upon more and more regulations. I didn't vote for him either time. Just because I don't buy into these nonsense conspiracy theories, that doesn't make me an Obama supporter.

Why do you think you're more important?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

We need to slash corporate taxes? What's less than zero?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

We need to slash corporate taxes? What's less than zero?

Corporate fascism.

 

[FootballDummy]

We need to slash corporate taxes? What's less than zero?

Corporate fascism.

Already there.

 

[adonis]

Wish the republicans were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they are looking for Obama-crushing scandals.

More austerity, and more contrived political scandals...oh, and can we vote to repeal Obamacare again? Can we, Can we?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Wish the republicans were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they are looking for Obama-crushing scandals.

More austerity, and more contrived political scandals...oh, and can we vote to repeal Obamacare again? Can we, Can we?

I wish liberals were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they were looking to cover up a horribly botch Benghazi..

 

[Ghost Rider]

I don't think this whole thing will hurt Hillary's chance that much in 2016. but I think the GOP is hoping it will. Even if doesn't, they will do whatever they can to marginalize her, just like the left will do the same with guys like Rubio (such as making a big deal out of the taking a drink of water thing after Obama's SOTU address).

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't think this whole thing will hurt Hillary's chance that much in 2016. but I think the GOP is hoping it will. Even if doesn't, they will do whatever they can to marginalize her, just like the left will do the same with guys like Rubio (such as making a big deal out of the taking a drink of water thing after Obama's SOTU address).

While it isn't crushing for Hillary, it is not good for her; this will almost certainly have an effect on her money, as people will either be turned off by her performance, or concerned about her ability to put the race away. She has provided quite the amounts of sound bites, with her multiple statements about Benghazi. Hillary will be stung by this.

 

[drummer]

I don't think this whole thing will hurt Hillary's chance that much in 2016. but I think the GOP is hoping it will. Even if doesn't, they will do whatever they can to marginalize her, just like the left will do the same with guys like Rubio (such as making a big deal out of the taking a drink of water thing after Obama's SOTU address).

While it isn't crushing for Hillary, it is not good for her; this will almost certainly have an effect on her money, as people will either be turned off by her performance, or concerned about her ability to put the race away. She has provided quite the amounts of sound bites, with her multiple statements about Benghazi. Hillary will be stung by this.

 

[pantherclub]

Wish the republicans were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they are looking for Obama-crushing scandals.

More austerity, and more contrived political scandals...oh, and can we vote to repeal Obamacare again? Can we, Can we?

I wish liberals were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they were looking to cover up a horribly botch Benghazi..

what exactly are they trying to cover up?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Wish the republicans were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they are looking for Obama-crushing scandals.

More austerity, and more contrived political scandals...oh, and can we vote to repeal Obamacare again? Can we, Can we?

I wish liberals were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they were looking to cover up a horribly botch Benghazi..

what exactly are they trying to cover up?

The fact that this was forewarned and they refused extra security, the fact that this could have potentially been avoided if that security was there, that they were asked for help during, and no help was sent, that al-qaeda was involved, that this wasn't a protest over a video gone wrong...

You really needed any of that pointed out to you?

 

[pantherclub]

Good luck with that

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Good luck with that

no luck needed

 

[matuski]

I don't think this whole thing will hurt Hillary's chance that much in 2016. but I think the GOP is hoping it will. Even if doesn't, they will do whatever they can to marginalize her, just like the left will do the same with guys like Rubio (such as making a big deal out of the taking a drink of water thing after Obama's SOTU address).

While it isn't crushing for Hillary, it is not good for her; this will almost certainly have an effect on her money, as people will either be turned off by her performance, or concerned about her ability to put the race away. She has provided quite the amounts of sound bites, with her multiple statements about Benghazi. Hillary will be stung by this.

Hillary has been stung... however, the longer and harder the right grips on this the better and better it will be for her long term.

It appears the right will indeed grip harder and harder.

 

[FlapJacks]

Wish the republicans were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they are looking for Obama-crushing scandals.

More austerity, and more contrived political scandals...oh, and can we vote to repeal Obamacare again? Can we, Can we?

I wish liberals were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they were looking to cover up a horribly botch Benghazi..

what exactly are they trying to cover up?

The fact that this was forewarned and they refused extra security, the fact that this could have potentially been avoided if that security was there, that they were asked for help during, and no help was sent, that al-qaeda was involved, that this wasn't a protest over a video gone wrong...

You really needed any of that pointed out to you?

anything negative about this administration fails to regster in his brain

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't think this whole thing will hurt Hillary's chance that much in 2016. but I think the GOP is hoping it will. Even if doesn't, they will do whatever they can to marginalize her, just like the left will do the same with guys like Rubio (such as making a big deal out of the taking a drink of water thing after Obama's SOTU address).

While it isn't crushing for Hillary, it is not good for her; this will almost certainly have an effect on her money, as people will either be turned off by her performance, or concerned about her ability to put the race away. She has provided quite the amounts of sound bites, with her multiple statements about Benghazi. Hillary will be stung by this.

Hillary has been stung... however, the longer and harder the right grips on this the better and better it will be for her long term. It appears the right will indeed grip harder and harder.

I don't think this whole thing will hurt Hillary's chance that much in 2016. but I think the GOP is hoping it will. Even if doesn't, they will do whatever they can to marginalize her, just like the left will do the same with guys like Rubio (such as making a big deal out of the taking a drink of water thing after Obama's SOTU address).

While it isn't crushing for Hillary, it is not good for her; this will almost certainly have an effect on her money, as people will either be turned off by her performance, or concerned about her ability to put the race away. She has provided quite the amounts of sound bites, with her multiple statements about Benghazi. Hillary will be stung by this.

Hillary has been stung... however, the longer and harder the right grips on this the better and better it will be for her long term. It appears the right will indeed grip harder and harder.

I agree but this story has had legs; I wouldn't be sizing up the new drapes for the White House just yet.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't think this whole thing will hurt Hillary's chance that much in 2016. but I think the GOP is hoping it will. Even if doesn't, they will do whatever they can to marginalize her, just like the left will do the same with guys like Rubio (such as making a big deal out of the taking a drink of water thing after Obama's SOTU address).

While it isn't crushing for Hillary, it is not good for her; this will almost certainly have an effect on her money, as people will either be turned off by her performance, or concerned about her ability to put the race away. She has provided quite the amounts of sound bites, with her multiple statements about Benghazi. Hillary will be stung by this.

See: Rice, Susan

 

[pittstownkiller]

Wish the republicans were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they are looking for Obama-crushing scandals. More austerity, and more contrived political scandals...oh, and can we vote to repeal Obamacare again? Can we, Can we?

I wish liberals were looking for answers to the economy as hard as they were looking to cover up a horribly botch Benghazi..

what exactly are they trying to cover up?

Incompetence.

 

[timschochet]

I don't believe this will affect Hillary's fundraising one iota. I predict that if she decides to run, she will raise more money than any candidate in history.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't believe this will affect Hillary's fundraising one iota. I predict that if she decides to run, she will raise more money than any candidate in history.

Thanks Tim, any guesses on the 2018 Men's Wimbledon champion?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I don't believe this will affect Hillary's fundraising one iota. I predict that if she decides to run, she will raise more money than any candidate in history.

Thanks Tim, any guesses on the 2018 Men's Wimbledon champion?

Do you really doubt the Clintons' ability to raise money?