U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

 

[NCCommish]

If only we had put this much effort into finding out how we were lied into a 10 year war that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives. If only we had berated those folks you know like Condi Rice. But no they are Republicans and so it was cool.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

 

[badmojo1006]

If only we had put this much effort into finding out how we were lied into a 10 year war that cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives. If only we had berated those folks you know like Condi Rice. But no they are Republicans and so it was cool.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

 

[NCCommish]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

 

[Slapdash]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

The sad part of all of this is using this tragedy as a witch hunt to score political points about a scandal that doesn't exist.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

The sad part of all of this is using this tragedy as a witch hunt to score political points about a scandal that doesn't exist.

 

[FootballDummy]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

The sad part of all of this is using this tragedy as a witch hunt to score political points about a scandal that doesn't exist.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Uh, the shoe was on the other foot (Condi Rice and Colin Powell) and those "lies" lead to a lot more than 4 deaths.

 

[pittstownkiller]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Uh, the shoe was on the other foot (Condi Rice and Colin Powell and Bill Clinton and Harry Reid, and John Kerry, and Joe Biden) and those "lies" lead to a lot more than 4 deaths.

Corrected for you. I can also add in these quotes of your new Secretary of State nominee:

Kerry even said that “People have forgotten that for seven and a half years [in Iraq], we found [and] were destroying weapons of mass destruction.”

On the Senate floor he said that “[a]ll US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.”

 

[tommyGunZ]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Uh, the shoe was on the other foot (Condi Rice and Colin Powell and Bill Clinton and Harry Reid, and John Kerry, and Joe Biden) and those "lies" lead to a lot more than 4 deaths.

Corrected for you. I can also add in these quotes of your new Secretary of State nominee:

Kerry even said that “People have forgotten that for seven and a half years [in Iraq], we found [and] were destroying weapons of mass destruction.”

On the Senate floor he said that “[a]ll US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.”

 

[Apple Jack]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Where do you stand on the thousands of Americans and 100,000+ Iraqi civilians that would still be alive today "if different actions were taken?" Are you cool with Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Tenet, et al being brought up to Congress and hammered over their "actions?"ETA: Gunz beat me to it.

 

[Apple Jack]

I don't understand why Congress even wasted their time with this. I mean, didn't they get tim's memo that this story doesn't matter??

We'd be much better off if they had.

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

 

[pittstownkiller]

Uh, the shoe was on the other foot (Condi Rice and Colin Powell and Bill Clinton and Harry Reid, and John Kerry, and Joe Biden) and those "lies" lead to a lot more than 4 deaths.

Corrected for you. I can also add in these quotes of your new Secretary of State nominee:

Kerry even said that “People have forgotten that for seven and a half years [in Iraq], we found [and] were destroying weapons of mass destruction.”

On the Senate floor he said that “[a]ll US intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons.”

Yes Tommy it is funny, that either these people were "complicit" or they are idiots that cannot be entrusted with the power they are given.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

Rand Paul can go to hell. #### that guy.

???

I shouldn't be surprised at the politicization of these kinds of hearings, but Paul is basically saying Hillary has blood on her hands: “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”He added, “It’s a failure of leadership” which cost the Americans in Benghazi their lives. “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility-- because no one else is.”

Rand Paul = BGP?

 

[timschochet]

We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

Rand Paul asked her about weapons being smuggled from Libya into Turkey. Turns out this is some conspiracy thing that Glenn Beck's been ranting about- I guess Paul must be an avid listener. Anyhow, Clinton's incredulous response was classic: "Turkey"?It's absolutely disgraceful that a state actually elected Rand Paul as it's senator. He may be the worst, most incompetent senator we've had since Bilbo (not the hobbit.)

 

[Apple Jack]

Rand Paul can go to hell. #### that guy.

???

I shouldn't be surprised at the politicization of these kinds of hearings, but Paul is basically saying Hillary has blood on her hands: “I’m glad that you’re accepting responsibility. I think that ultimately with your leaving, you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I really mean that. Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post.”He added, “It’s a failure of leadership” which cost the Americans in Benghazi their lives. “I think it’s good that you’re accepting responsibility-- because no one else is.”

Rand Paul = BGP?

I think he just announced and doomed his candidacy for President in 2016 in a matter of like five seconds.

 

[FlapJacks]

We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

Rand Paul asked her about weapons being smuggled from Libya into Turkey. Turns out this is some conspiracy thing that Glenn Beck's been ranting about- I guess Paul must be an avid listener. Anyhow, Clinton's incredulous response was classic: "Turkey"?It's absolutely disgraceful that a state actually elected Rand Paul as it's senator. He may be the worst, most incompetent senator we've had since Bilbo (not the hobbit.)

http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/en/newsdetails/news/world/Libyan-charity-s-ship-implicated-in-Benghazi-attack-on-US-ambassador-20121030

 

[timschochet]

We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

Rand Paul asked her about weapons being smuggled from Libya into Turkey. Turns out this is some conspiracy thing that Glenn Beck's been ranting about- I guess Paul must be an avid listener. Anyhow, Clinton's incredulous response was classic: "Turkey"?It's absolutely disgraceful that a state actually elected Rand Paul as it's senator. He may be the worst, most incompetent senator we've had since Bilbo (not the hobbit.)

http://www.maltatoda...ssador-20121030

Do you normally get your news from Malta Today?

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/05/flooding-syria-with-foreign-arms-a-view-from-damascus/

The involvement of numerous countries in the Syrian crisis as arms suppliers and political operatives was tangentially referenced by the recent UN Security Council Statement of October 24, which admits the existence of foreign actors and implies their arms supplying activities by urging “all regional and international actors to use their influence on the parties concerned to facilitate the implementation of the [Eid al Adha] ceasefire and cessation of violence.”

According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich, “At the same time, it is also well-known that Washington is aware of supplies of various types of arms to illegal armed groups operating in Syria. Moreover, the United States, judging by admissions by American officials that have also been published in American media, is conducting coordination and providing logistical support for such supplies.” NBC News, based in New York, reported in July that Syrian insurgents had obtained two dozen US MANPADS, delivered from Turkey.

A month after the October 2011 death of Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced in Tripoli that the U.S. was committing $40 million to help Libya “secure and recover its weapons stockpiles.” Congressional sources report that the Obama administration is fully aware that quantities of these arms are current in Syria and more in transit.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/48430298/ns/business-stocks_and_economy/t/syrian-rebels-acquire-surface-to-air-missiles-report/"NBC News reported Tuesday night that the rebel Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen of the weapons, which were delivered to them via neighboring Turkey"

 

[timschochet]

http://www.msnbc.msn...issiles-report/"NBC News reported Tuesday night that the rebel Free Syrian Army had obtained nearly two dozen of the weapons, which were delivered to them via neighboring Turkey"

This is the first reliable source you've posted, but there's no mention of Benghazi, or any conspiracy on the part of the Obama administration. The conspiracy part (in which supposedly the ambassador to Libya was allowed to be killed in order to "protect" the coverup) is what that idiot Rand Paul was asking about.

 

[FlapJacks]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3537770.ece

A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.

 

[sporthenry]

Did she really cry?

Did I say she didn't read any of the 1.4 million cables? No. But unless you read all 1.4 million, it is impossible to ensure that you read all of them. But see, this is my biggest problem with how this whole investigation went on. Either the Republicans had too much ammo and threw stuff on the wall hoping it would stick or they didn't have much so they just kept hoping something would stick. First, it was blaming it on the Youtube video which as Hillary said, who really cares. It wouldn't have stopped the attack regardless and eventually we found out what happened. I guess you can believe the conspiracy theory that it was an attempt at a cover up but it was an ongoing investigation. It took the FBI nearly 3 weeks to get boots on the ground to do an investigation and we are #####ing about something that was said within 5 days? That stuff happens within an investigation. Remember the developments on CNN during Newtown, they thought the brother was the shooter for much of the day. Like I said, this will just make the State Department wait until the investigation is finished instead of trying to update the American people as things go on. Not sure that puts us in a better situation. Then, we have this stuff about Libya being under constant threat. My problem with this is, as Hillary stated, we have constant threats to many of our consulates and embassies. I'm sure if we released cables from many of the consulates in the area, they would send similar ones. Just like the day of, when she was working to secure many of our overseas consulates/embassies which were being run down during the protests. And back to the 1.4 million cables. She can't guarantee she gets all of the cables. That falls on the people who read them. So perhaps instead of Rand Paul looking like an idiot, we should have asked what happened to the cable? Where did it go? Why did you not see it? Who saw it? Who decided to not do anything? Perhaps DHS and DOJ were also partially responsible since they also received similar reports? Perhaps the cable stopped with DSS who are responsible for diplomatic security, hence why 3 of them were fired (My link) But as that article states, this was a systemic failure, very much similar to 9/11. We had the information but it didn't get to the right people. So I ask, do you think Freeh and Tenet and ultimately GWB are responsible for 9/11 much like Hillary and Obama are responsible for Benghazi? Because the parallels are very evident. But instead of continuing to point fingers and politicize this, we had a commission which changed our SOP to ensure this never happened again much like we have done after Benghazi.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

 

[tommyGunZ]

Idk dude, the grasping at staws is pretty entertaining.

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Did she really cry?

The first paragraph in your reply is so ridiculous it had me laughing out loud. Did Mrs Clinton receive 1.4 million cables from Ambassador Stevens? I think an Ambassador should be able to get through the channels, especially if he concerned about the mission's safety. If it was an ongoing investigation, then why not just say that? Why the giant rush to an incorrect cause and surround yourself in it. No evidence pointed to the attack being linked to a video and plenty of evidence pointed away from it; why was that conclusion made and pounded home by the administration. Hillary Clinton herself said that the blames for the attacks rests on her shoulders, you state there was a "systemic failure"; do those two actually compute to you as events beyond her control? I also love the "whatever is done, is done" sentiment, I wonder why more people who are questioned don't say that, .

 

[pittstownkiller]

]What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

I guess the part where the voted affirmative to bill authorizing the President to use military force.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

I guess the part where the voted affirmative to bill authorizing the President to use military force.

Authorizing force if necessary = ordering an invasion?

 

[saintfool]

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/middleeast/article3537770.ece

A Libyan ship carrying the largest consignment of weapons for Syria since the uprising began has docked in Turkey and most of its cargo is making its way to rebels on the front lines, The Times has learnt.Among more than 400 tonnes of cargo the vessel was carrying were SAM-7 surface-to-air anti-aircraft missiles and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), which Syrian sources said could be a game-changer for the rebels.

i fully expect the bashar gov't to use all their military might - mainly the syrian airforce - to stop that ship from reaching any port near syrian borders.

 

[timschochet]

Personally, I believe that Hillary, Kerry, and every other Senator who voted to authorize force in Iraq share some responsibility for that mess. Of course it's nowhere near the responsibility of the Bush Administration. But it is SOME responsibility. Hillary has already paid the price for this; the main reason she is not President right now is because progressives in her party turned against her over this issue. The invasion of Iraq is so much more important and disastrous than this incident in Benghazi that it's really an embarrassment that we're even bothering to make this comparison.

 

[Captain Quinoa]

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

I guess the part where the voted affirmative to bill authorizing the President to use military force.

Authorizing force if necessary = ordering an invasion?

wow this is disingenuous even for you

 

[RBM]

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

I guess the part where the voted affirmative to bill authorizing the President to use military force.

Authorizing force if necessary = ordering an invasion?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Personally, I believe that Hillary, Kerry, and every other Senator who voted to authorize force in Iraq share some responsibility for that mess. Of course it's nowhere near the responsibility of the Bush Administration. But it is SOME responsibility. Hillary has already paid the price for this; the main reason she is not President right now is because progressives in her party turned against her over this issue. The invasion of Iraq is so much more important and disastrous than this incident in Benghazi that it's really an embarrassment that we're even bothering to make this comparison.

Thanks Tim.

 

[mad sweeney]

What is sad is how some of the partisan hacks have no issues with how this was handled or the fact that maybe those 4 people may still be alive today if different actions were taken.

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

Or base their conclusions on intelligence other than the massive amount of bs presented to them?

 

[Politician Spock]

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

I guess the part where the voted affirmative to bill authorizing the President to use military force.

Authorizing force if necessary = ordering an invasion?

Probably not a good idea to say something like this on the same day you lost 10%+ in aapl, unless you are trying to achieve a REALLY bad day.

 

[mad sweeney]

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

I guess the part where the voted affirmative to bill authorizing the President to use military force.

Based on his presentation of the "threat" the Iraq posed, pretty much all of which turned out to be false.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Things happen, it's a dangerous world. What is sad is instead of focusing on fixing what, if anything, can be fixed we are busy grandstanding for the cameras. We have senators who want to cut States budget in half crying that they don't spend enough. We got senators bringing in WND and Beck fantasies to a hearing that has nothing to do with those lame ### conspiracy nuts. That's whats sad.

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

Or base their conclusions on intelligence other than the massive amount of bs presented to them?

They have access to the same intelligence the White House has. try again.

 

[pittstownkiller]

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

I guess the part where the voted affirmative to bill authorizing the President to use military force.

Based on his presentation of the "threat" the Iraq posed, pretty much all of which turned out to be false.

Yes the were all fooled; do you know how stupid that sounds?

 

[mad sweeney]

And you are blind if you think the Dems wouldn't have done the same thing if the shoe was on the other foot.You're nuts if you think this event was handled well and I'm glad you are ok that all of us were lied too not to mention all the cables that were not read indicating they were worried about an attack.

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

Or base their conclusions on intelligence other than the massive amount of bs presented to them?

They have access to the same intelligence the White House has. try again.

Yeah, that would be all the bad intelligence, right?

 

[mad sweeney]

Yeah I am sure you reacted the same way about being lied into a major war that cost us billions and thousands of lives. I'm sure I just missed that.

I seem to remember Mrs. Clinton on the Senate floor berating Bush for not going after Saddam Hussien and wasting his time in Afghanistan, all before voting for authorization to use military force; it's nice to know that we are in agreement that she is an incompetent.

Link? And what exactly did she mean by "going after?"

C'mon Apple Jack, are you really going to try to deny that Hillary Clinton wasn't right in line with many others, for the invasion of Iraq. Here is some more:

“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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

And these nuggets from Kerry:

“I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002“The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” — John Kerry, October 9, 2002“(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. …And now he is miscalculating America�s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.” — John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

Where is the part where they advocate an actual invasion?

I guess the part where the voted affirmative to bill authorizing the President to use military force.

Based on his presentation of the "threat" the Iraq posed, pretty much all of which turned out to be false.

Yes the were all fooled; do you know how stupid that sounds?

Not as stupid as you do. There are other factors like re-elections and public peer pressure as well especially with the big "threat" the administration built up (and squashing voices that suggested otherwise). But the catch-all excuse of "Dems voted for it" is stupid since they based their vote on the fabricated and mangled evidence that was presented by the Admins intelligence community.

 

[sporthenry]

Did she really cry?

Well I'm glad I could provide you with humor. Like I said, we have no idea where the cable went but to assume that she would get a single cable is naive. I'm sure part of the ARB suggestions ensured making sure cables were sent to the correct people and for all we know, they were, hence why Diplomatic Security officials were fired. People want to tie this to Hillary b/c she was head of the State Department and she shoulders the full responsibility b/c it happened on her watch but to act like she was somehow negligent in this attack is humorous and clearly political. There was no evidence of a protest? You mean like the fact that we had 2-3 other foreign consulates/embassies under attack by spontaneous protests? Yes, Hillary admitted they shouldn't have said anything, and as I said, that will become standard operating procedure for the State department going forward. But I guarantee you, Congress and the American people will want answers even if there aren't any. So next crisis, Republicans will be reprimanding Kerry for not answering anything for a month about the next event. I'm glad you love the "what's done is done" but that was sort of what happened after 9/11. Sure, some people pointed fingers but most people just concluded it was a terrible act done by evil people and we would do whatever necessary to ensure it doesn't happen again. I think that response has been fairly similar here, but a prominent political figure or two existed in this story so they took the chance to politicize this.

 

[NCCommish]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

 

[jamny]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

 

[pantherclub]

I was wondering something. Under W there were 64 attacks on diplomatic targets. These attacks resulted in over 20 deaths including the death of a Diplomat in the Karachi attack. Yet I don't recall the hearings. I don't recall anyone getting fired. I am sure one of you can provide me a link to those things as they must have happened right?

I would imagine they were acknowledged as terrorist attacks and not passed off as merely a reaction to a video or some other excuse. It would also be important to know if there were warnings of escalation and previous attacks on the same locations in the days/weeks/months leading up to them. Hopefully when you come back with that info we can make a direct comparison.

honestly whats the difference and why does it matter?