U.S. Ambassador to Libya Killed in Rocket Attack (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

CH, once again you repeated the claim that "they asked for help and no help was sent". Of all the charges this is surely the most serious, and several times I have asked for but never received a link from a reputable source that would provide evidence for this claim. Do you have a link?

 

[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.

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

Would you like to bet some money on this? $100?

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

All this is really doing is innoculating Hillary in the event that there's an actual scandal before 2016. The number of people who think there's anything to any of this Benghazi stuff who were actually open to voting for Hillary beforehand is roughly zero.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

GOP needs to wrap this up. Spirited effort, but it's over. Continuing down this path only helps democrats, and they don't really need it.

 

[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?

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?

Yes.

 

[pittstownkiller]

GOP needs to wrap this up. Spirited effort, but it's over. Continuing down this path only helps democrats, and they don't really need it.

 

[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?

Would you like to bet some money on this? $100?

Do I have to place my bet with the Hillary for President Campaign?

 

[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.

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

Would you like to bet some money on this? $100?

Do I have to place my bet with the Hillary for President Campaign?

Nope. With me right here. $100 says Hillary, if she runs, raises the most money of any candidate in history. Do we have a bet?

 

[pantagrapher]

GOP needs to wrap this up. Spirited effort, but it's over. Continuing down this path only helps democrats, and they don't really need it.

One of the last stages of the Birthers, when you knew you were down to the hard core freaks, was when they were so embarrassed by the failure of the movement to gain any traction that they started blaming Obama for dragging it out ("This wouldn't still be an issue if they'd just released the birth certificate!"). Now Benghazi loons are starting to go the same route: "This wouldn't have been an issue if they'd used the word "terrorism'!" Neither assertion is true. The loons will stick to their lunacy either way. But it does indicate some self-awareness and even a bit of embarrassment that they've come this far and fought this hard and have nothing to show for it.

 

[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?

Would you like to bet some money on this? $100?

Do I have to place my bet with the Hillary for President Campaign?

Nope. With me right here. $100 says Hillary, if she runs, raises the most money of any candidate in history. Do we have a bet?

I thought this was for the Wimbledon Champion.

 

[FlapJacks]

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?

is there an official Hillary 2016 thread that you take this sidebar to?

 

[mad sweeney]

CH, once again you repeated the claim that "they asked for help and no help was sent". Of all the charges this is surely the most serious, and several times I have asked for but never received a link from a reputable source that would provide evidence for this claim. Do you have a link?

You think he'll provide a link?,

 

[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?

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

is there an official Hillary 2016 thread that you take this sidebar to?

Knowing Tim, there is one now.

 

[FlapJacks]

CH, once again you repeated the claim that "they asked for help and no help was sent". Of all the charges this is surely the most serious, and several times I have asked for but never received a link from a reputable source that would provide evidence for this claim. Do you have a link?

ISs there a link that shows any help was sent? If we sent help, we surely would have heard about it by now...

 

[pittstownkiller]

CH, once again you repeated the claim that "they asked for help and no help was sent". Of all the charges this is surely the most serious, and several times I have asked for but never received a link from a reputable source that would provide evidence for this claim. Do you have a link?

ISs there a link that shows any help was sent? If we sent help, we surely would have heard about it by now...

I think he wants the link showing there was a request for help; I guess the Seal was on the roof with a laser pointer, while mortars and heavy machine gun fire rained down, because he was thrill-seeker.

 

[Lutherman2112]

GOP needs to wrap this up. Spirited effort, but it's over. Continuing down this path only helps democrats, and they don't really need it.

One of the last stages of the Birthers, when you knew you were down to the hard core freaks, was when they were so embarrassed by the failure of the movement to gain any traction that they started blaming Obama for dragging it out ("This wouldn't still be an issue if they'd just released the birth certificate!"). Now Benghazi loons are starting to go the same route: "This wouldn't have been an issue if they'd used the word "terrorism'!" Neither assertion is true. The loons will stick to their lunacy either way. But it does indicate some self-awareness and even a bit of embarrassment that they've come this far and fought this hard and have nothing to show for it.

The Birthers are still out there: Sheriff Joe to Congress: Investigate Obama's eligibility

 

[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.

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

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

is there an official Hillary 2016 thread that you take this sidebar to?

Knowing Tim, there is one now.

You're the one who brought this subject up, not me. You're the one asserting that it will hurt Hillary's ability to raise money, not me. And you're the one who, when challenged on this statement, and offered a bet to back it up, attempted to play off the whole thing as a big joke.

 

[timschochet]

CH, once again you repeated the claim that "they asked for help and no help was sent". Of all the charges this is surely the most serious, and several times I have asked for but never received a link from a reputable source that would provide evidence for this claim. Do you have a link?

ISs there a link that shows any help was sent? If we sent help, we surely would have heard about it by now...

I think he wants the link showing there was a request for help; I guess the Seal was on the roof with a laser pointer, while mortars and heavy machine gun fire rained down, because he was thrill-seeker.

I have no idea what you're going on about here. Care to explain?

 

[Todd Andrews]

KooK Power!!1!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

GOP needs to wrap this up. Spirited effort, but it's over. Continuing down this path only helps democrats, and they don't really need it.

One of the last stages of the Birthers, when you knew you were down to the hard core freaks, was when they were so embarrassed by the failure of the movement to gain any traction that they started blaming Obama for dragging it out ("This wouldn't still be an issue if they'd just released the birth certificate!"). Now Benghazi loons are starting to go the same route: "This wouldn't have been an issue if they'd used the word "terrorism'!" Neither assertion is true. The loons will stick to their lunacy either way. But it does indicate some self-awareness and even a bit of embarrassment that they've come this far and fought this hard and have nothing to show for it.

Sadly this line of thinking really shows everything wrong with our democracy these days:

- Mistrust of the party out of presidential power based on repeated calls for investigations and claims of lying.

- Mistrust of the party in presidential power based on perceived deception in reaching the post. Example: about the Birthers. for crying out loud as wrong as they were and are is there some bloomin' reason a presidential candidate can't produce their driving and criminal records (Bush), college transcripts (Bush, Kerry, Clinton), military records (Bush, Kerry, Clinton), and just about every other record reflecting their semi-personal history before we the people decide whether they should become president? The candidates dissemble, delay, divert and then they wonder why opponents believe a whole host of allegations about them? Try that in a personal relationship some time and see where that gets you.

- Overextension of presidential power over Congressional authority. Why should Congress be denied anything? Why? The point just being that the president is there to execute the laws, not make them. It's true that the nation's foreign polciy is solely the purview of the executive but that does not mean that the People's body should not have total access to all events relating to the creation of foreign policy. For instance it's absurd to think the Senate should have the right to approve or decline all treaties but can't get all information (not just 20 or so cherry picked emails) on how a presentation for a thirty minute interview was concocted.

BTW, I really don't blame some Obama's supporters for feeling like this, but this is a pure example of institutions riddled with mistrust going both ways.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

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).

To be fair, it was

.

 

[Rohn Jambo]

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?

is there an official Hillary 2016 thread that you take this sidebar to?

Knowing Tim, there is one now.

You're the one who brought this subject up, not me. You're the one asserting that it will hurt Hillary's ability to raise money, not me. And you're the one who, when challenged on this statement, and offered a bet to back it up, attempted to play off the whole thing as a big joke.

The morality problem in Washington vs. American society in general - it is kinda a chicken or egg thing. There is a reason why even a great empire like the Romans did not last forever.

 

[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.

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

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

is there an official Hillary 2016 thread that you take this sidebar to?

Knowing Tim, there is one now.

You're the one who brought this subject up, not me. You're the one asserting that it will hurt Hillary's ability to raise money, not me. And you're the one who, when challenged on this statement, and offered a bet to back it up, attempted to play off the whole thing as a big joke.

The morality problem in Washington vs. American society in general - it is kinda a chicken or egg thing. There is a reason why even a great empire like the Romans did not last forever.

If you include the Republic, Rome lasted something like 900 years. If that's the amount of time we have to look forward to for the USA, I'll take it.

 

[timschochet]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

 

[Stinger Ray]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

 

[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.

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.

So I make a statement discussing Obama's ability to stear clear of scandal and you somehow connect that to the Iraq war? Was Benghazi Bush's fault?

 

[timschochet]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Thank you. Do you know what specific help was being asked for? Do you know how the State Department has responded to this charge? And why do people keep bringing Obama and Hillary into it, as if it were their decision to refuse the help? I've read that before too, but it seems to raise more questions than it answered, and it really doesn't provide the evidence that I'm looking for, namely that Obama and Hillary were somehow involved in the deliberate refusal to send aid (this is the specific charge that some conservatives are making.)

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Thank you. Do you know what specific help was being asked for? Do you know how the State Department has responded to this charge? And why do people keep bringing Obama and Hillary into it, as if it were their decision to refuse the help? I've read that before too, but it seems to raise more questions than it answered, and it really doesn't provide the evidence that I'm looking for, namely that Obama and Hillary were somehow involved in the deliberate refusal to send aid (this is the specific charge that some conservatives are making.)

If the state department refused help, and Hilary headed up the state department, she is accountable for the refusal. Whether she was directly incompetent of she allowed incompetence from others, she is still accountable, these where her people, she was in charge, and the administration was in charge of the personnel.. And she was Obama's pick for the job, so if it falls on her, it also falls on him.. Regardless, this administration will have been incompetent..

"I'm not stupid, I just surround myself with stupid people" <-- Well, you stupidly left stupid people to make the decisions..

 

[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.

So I make a statement discussing Obama's ability to stear clear of scandal and you somehow connect that to the Iraq war? Was Benghazi Bush's fault?

This is such a nightmare the Obama shills have no other choice but to compare it to other nightmares.. Trying to make this abortion look less abortion like by comparison..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..

Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

 

[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.

See: Rice, Susan

Where are they polling Rice against Christie?

 

[drummer]

GOP needs to wrap this up. Spirited effort, but it's over. Continuing down this path only helps democrats, and they don't really need it.

But it was a good Grandstanding moment for them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

Where are they polling Rice against Christie?

I am trying to figure out if the only punishment for bad actions (misfeasance or malfeasance) is either a scandal so bad that a president will be forced to resign or be impeached or that a future candidate will be so damaged he/she will be faced with losing a nomination or election, where that leaves us in terms of the government we get?

Because so far it is pretty hard to point to a scandal that has ever fit that bill besides Watergate or Gary Hart's Monkey Business, and the way things are today I am not exactly sure either would have the same effect today.

 

[timschochet]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..

Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

His answer was insufficient, based on the questions I asked and based on the fact that it doesn't lead to the White House or to Hillary Clinton. Your answer, that Hillary should personally be on top of every request made by every State Department official around the world, implies a real ignorance of the way government works.

And we still don't know what the specific nature of this request was, why it was made, and whether it was an unusual request. (My strong guess as to this last that it wasn't.)

 

[timschochet]

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

Where are they polling Rice against Christie?

I am trying to figure out if the only punishment for bad actions (misfeasance or malfeasance) is either a scandal so bad that a president will be forced to resign or be impeached or that a future candidate will be so damaged he/she will be faced with losing a nomination or election, where that leaves us in terms of the government we get?

Because so far it is pretty hard to point to a scandal that has ever fit that bill besides Watergate or Gary Hart's Monkey Business, and the way things are today I am not exactly sure either would have the same effect today.

Doesn't have to be so either-or. Most scandals result in the removal of the person most targeted. This scandal, for instance, has already cost the nation the services of Susan Rice (which is a waste of her talents, IMO.) The Valerie Plame scandal lost us the services of one of **** Cheney's most senior aides. And so forth.

 

[pantherclub]

Hustler,

In the immortal words of Jimmy V, "dont give up, dont ever give up"

 

[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.

See: Rice, Susan

Where are they polling Rice against Christie?

I am trying to figure out if the only punishment for bad actions (misfeasance or malfeasance) is either a scandal so bad that a president will be forced to resign or be impeached or that a future candidate will be so damaged he/she will be faced with losing a nomination or election, where that leaves us in terms of the government we get?

Because so far it is pretty hard to point to a scandal that has ever fit that bill besides Watergate or Gary Hart's Monkey Business, and the way things are today I am not exactly sure either would have the same effect today.

The real question is why Stevens and his staff were there in a dangerous situation in the first place, given the lack of security that most Consulates have. There is a whole lot more background as why, such as Blackwater, funding, etc.

This is just pure hand wringing by the kook Right.

 

[pittstownkiller]

So I am still waiting for: 1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided. 2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times. 3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue. 4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

Yes Tim, I am a coward because I did not accept your bet. "Do you wanna bet?"; really, what are we in 4th grade? I have also seen most of the bets you make turn into some sort of twisted, unverifiable, term that vaguely resembles the original debate. Hillary Clinton in 2008 raised the most money of any candidate in history, only to have her campaign finish $22 million in debt...and she lost. But I am intrigued by your bet, and all the hedging that you are doing, so let's get one issue out of the way: the bet (if it happens, since I do not bet) will be that "Hillary Clinton 2016" raises more money than any other candidate in history, including topping her previous campaigns, not including DNC money, and not reliant upon her deciding to run or staying in the race. What odds are you going to give me since you are so brave and you are all hot and bothered for Hillary - the heir apparent? The fact is Hillary was personally on the hook for nearly $11 million of her campaign debt and it took her to 2013 to pay it off. Her donors, and even Obama's, did not care to help her out. The Clinton's have baggage, whether you like that or not. You cite polls that show her favorables but her unfavorables run so strong that she would have a hard time winning the nomination - just like 2008. The main difference are the people who backed her once in a losing effort, only to have to bail her out of her debt -when she so stupidly stayed in with very little chance of winning - will be reluctant to give her even more money. You do realize that she lost to a relatively unknown lightweight who had no money, and she had her hands full with Edwards till he imploded. She came into the race with nearly $14 million left over from her senate race, raised more money then anyone else, and finished soundly beaten and severely in debt - without being forefront of a possible scandal. Hillary has no stockpile of money now, is not in elected office, and is hiding so she does not have to answer question on Benghazi; how will she raise money?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

Where are they polling Rice against Christie?

I am trying to figure out if the only punishment for bad actions (misfeasance or malfeasance) is either a scandal so bad that a president will be forced to resign or be impeached or that a future candidate will be so damaged he/she will be faced with losing a nomination or election, where that leaves us in terms of the government we get?

Because so far it is pretty hard to point to a scandal that has ever fit that bill besides Watergate or Gary Hart's Monkey Business, and the way things are today I am not exactly sure either would have the same effect today.

Doesn't have to be so either-or. Most scandals result in the removal of the person most targeted. This scandal, for instance, has already cost the nation the services of Susan Rice (which is a waste of her talents, IMO.) The Valerie Plame scandal lost us the services of one of **** Cheney's most senior aides. And so forth.

Scooter Libby is probably a prime example of the kind of worm that traverses both parties in power to stay in power and causes all kinds of damage. No loss there.

The point about Rice, Plame (and Clark) is better, but really the people don't seem to care about them. In fact their bosses don't seem to care about them. The only real incentive for preventing some of this is if people who set them up for the fall actually go to jail for lying to Congress. And maybe if that happens they will finally roll on the people really calling the shots.

 

[timschochet]

So I am still waiting for: 1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided. 2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times. 3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue. 4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

Yes Tim, I am a coward because I did not accept your bet. "Do you wanna bet?"; really, what are we in 4th grade? I have also seen most of the bets you make turn into some sort of twisted, unverifiable, term that vaguely resembles the original debate. Hillary Clinton in 2008 raised the most money of any candidate in history, only to have her campaign finish $22 million in debt...and she lost. But I am intrigued by your bet, and all the hedging that you are doing, so let's get one issue out of the way: the bet (if it happens, since I do not bet) will be that "Hillary Clinton 2016" raises more money than any other candidate in history, including topping her previous campaigns, not including DNC money, and not reliant upon her deciding to run or staying in the race. What odds are you going to give me since you are so brave and you are all hot and bothered for Hillary - the heir apparent?The fact is Hillary was personally on the hook for nearly $11 million of her campaign debt and it took her to 2013 to pay it off. Her donors, and even Obama's, did not care to help her out. The Clinton's have baggage, whether you like that or not. You cite polls that show her favorables but her unfavorables run so strong that she would have a hard time winning the nomination - just like 2008. The main difference are the people who backed her once in a losing effort, only to have to bail her out of her debt -when she so stupidly stayed in with very little chance of winning - will be reluctant to give her even more money. You do realize that she lost to a relatively unknown lightweight who had no money, and she had her hands full with Edwards till he imploded. She came into the race with nearly $14 million left over from her senate race, raised more money then anyone else, and finished soundly beaten and severely in debt - without being forefront of a possible scandal. Hillary has no stockpile of money now, is not in elected office, and is hiding so she does not have to answer question on Benghazi; how will she raise money?

Look, you're the one who made the claim that Hillary would have trouble raising money. And now you want me to offer you odds? You didn't say that there is a 33% chance that Hillary will have trouble raising money. You stated it like a fact. You don't need odds. Back up your statement.

As for your question: I advise reading the book Game Change, by John Halprin, about the 2008 election and how it changed American politics, especially in the way money was raised for candidates. Essentially Hillary's team went about things the old way: fundraisers, big name donors, etc., while Obama greatly expanded Howard Dean's idea of taking advantage of the Internet. This time around, the lesson is learned and every candidate will focus on the Internet as a primary source (as they did in 2012).

As far as Hillary "hiding from the Benghazi questions", that's a load of crap. Trust me, if Hillary decides to run, she will come out of hiding.

Finally, you make the claim that I am "hot and bothered" for Hillary. While I have a lot of respect for her, and I believe she has been abused unfairly by her opponents, I doubt I could ever vote for her for President. I could vote for Bill at this point- he is much more of a moderate. But alas Hillary is not Bill.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Finally, you make the claim that I am "hot and bothered" for Hillary. While I have a lot of respect for her, and I believe she has been abused unfairly by her opponents, I doubt I could ever vote for her for President. I could vote for Bill at this point- he is much more of a moderate. But alas Hillary is not Bill.

This is an interesting comment. I supported Obama over Hillary in the 2008 primary even though I thought that Obama would govern much more liberally than Hillary would have. (I ended up being wrong about Obama's governing style, pleasantly so). My problem with Hillary and Bill Clinton both is their complete and utter lack of anything resembling character or even just basic human decency. I don't think that elected officials need to be saints, but it would be nice if they were at least better than "be the opposite of that person" negative role models. In other words, I suspect I would actually end up being sort of okay with a Hillary administration, partly because I don't think she would govern from the far left and partly because she and her little circle are too incompetent to do any real damage, but I just don't want her in office.

 

[Stinger Ray]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

His answer was insufficient, based on the questions I asked and based on the fact that it doesn't lead to the White House or to Hillary Clinton. Your answer, that Hillary should personally be on top of every request made by every State Department official around the world, implies a real ignorance of the way government works.And we still don't know what the specific nature of this request was, why it was made, and whether it was an unusual request. (My strong guess as to this last that it wasn't.)

The answer wasn't insufficient. You asked for a link that tied the state department to not responding for requests for more help. I did that. You didn't ask for a link to prove Hillary didn't respond. You're pathetic.

 

[cubd8]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks after the attack?

 

[pantherclub]

Link

 

[timschochet]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks after the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

 

[Rohn Jambo]

Hey guys, you're blowing this "scandal" way out of proportion. It's not even front page news. Huffington finds "sock bun" to be more newsworthy.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks after the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

'Cuz its what the media and general populace found to be catalyst for those current issues.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

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

Where are they polling Rice against Christie?

I am trying to figure out if the only punishment for bad actions (misfeasance or malfeasance) is either a scandal so bad that a president will be forced to resign or be impeached or that a future candidate will be so damaged he/she will be faced with losing a nomination or election, where that leaves us in terms of the government we get?

Because so far it is pretty hard to point to a scandal that has ever fit that bill besides Watergate or Gary Hart's Monkey Business, and the way things are today I am not exactly sure either would have the same effect today.

The real question is why Stevens and his staff were there in a dangerous situation in the first place, given the lack of security that most Consulates have. There is a whole lot more background as why, such as Blackwater, funding, etc.

This is just pure hand wringing by the kook Right.

I don't discount your point, it's a good one. But the thing that keeps getting stuck in my craw is Obama's speeech at the UN.

Today, we must affirm that our future will be determined by people like Chris Stevens, and not by his killers. Today, we must declare that this violence and intolerance has no place among our United Nations.

...

That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity. It is an insult not only to Muslims, but to America as well – for as the city outside these walls makes clear, we are a country that has welcomed people of every race and religion. We are home to Muslims who worship across our country. We not only respect the freedom of religion – we have laws that protect individuals from being harmed because of how they look or what they believe. We understand why people take offense to this video because millions of our citizens are among them.

I know there are some who ask why we don't just ban such a video.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/transcript-president-obama-delivers-remarks-united-nations-invokes/story?id=17319652&singlePage=true

Where exactly does "intolerance" come into what happened to Stevens?

And on and on he went about the video and free speech. If he was talking about AQ and terrorism, it sure does not appear in that speech. That's Pres. Obama, it was September 25th, and that was two weeks after the events of 9/11/12.

ETA: As an aside (because this is not my point) why would that video be an "insult ... to America"? Did the president watch it before making that point? Has anyone watched it?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So I am still waiting for:

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

How do you explain President Obama at the UN giving a speech and mentioning this YouTube video several times a few weeks after the attack?

How do YOU explain it?

Hey guys, how about we all agree that people have a right to ask the president explain it?

 

[timschochet]

So I am still waiting for:

1. Some kind of evidence that (a) the diplomats in Benghazi asked for more help and (b) that our State Department and/or White House refused to offer that help. This charge has been made several times; it was made this morning again by Carolina Hustler. I have asked again and again for some kind of back up on this, and none has been provided.

2. Some kind of evidence that President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton deliberately misrepresented the facts about the attack, claiming that it was caused by the youtube video when they knew it wasn't. This is the key issue that has been argued continually in this thread, but while almost everyone acknowledges that an error (or several errors) was made, there doesn't seem to be any evidence of deliberate knowledge. But if somebody has that evidence, please provide it. I have asked several times.

3. If you are one of those who believe that this is a serious issue involving the competency of President Obama and/or Hillary Clinton even without the evidence that I am asking for above, please make your argument. My own position is that without compelling evidence to prove either point #1 or point #2, this is, and has always been, a non-issue.

4. Finally, Pittstownkiller made the argument here that this issue would hurt Hillary Clinton, in the event that she runs for President, especially in terms of her raising money. I predicted that if Hillary decides to run, she would raise more money than any other candidate in history. Given recent political trends, I feel this is a pretty safe prediction, but Pittstownkiller responded by mocking me. So I challenged him to a $100 bet which he refused. Pittstownkiller, so far as I am concerned, unless you are willing to either (a) take me up on my wager or (b) acknowledge that you were completely wrong and a coward, then you really have no credibility left.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/09/world/la-fg-libya-security-20121010

Does no good.. He'll ask the same questions 5 pages from now and pretend this link was never shown to him..Answer him 50 times and he'll still pretend you never answered him..

His answer was insufficient, based on the questions I asked and based on the fact that it doesn't lead to the White House or to Hillary Clinton. Your answer, that Hillary should personally be on top of every request made by every State Department official around the world, implies a real ignorance of the way government works.And we still don't know what the specific nature of this request was, why it was made, and whether it was an unusual request. (My strong guess as to this last that it wasn't.)

The answer wasn't insufficient. You asked for a link that tied the state department to not responding for requests for more help. I did that. You didn't ask for a link to prove Hillary didn't respond. You're pathetic.

No you didn't. We have no idea how the State Department responded to that request. In fact, we have no idea what the specific request was. We have no idea what the hell happened. The answer is absolutely insufficient.