patrick.net

Way to miss the point completely!
who gives a rats ass whether they would have been overridden or not.
Help was requested and denied by HillBill.
In a hostile location...
on 9/11.....
how fuckin dumb can she be??
If it could not have been defended she should have pulled everyone out...

msilenus says

At a fully-established, fully-staffed, fully-hardened U.S. embassy with elevated security, a determined mob will overwhelm the facility in a matter hours

dissimilar situation comparison..
Fail.

lostand confused says

SoftShell says

History and protocol dictate that when you fuck up like this, you gotta go. Like NOW.

History and protocol from which country? When 9/11 happened, who resigned?

RELEVANT:

http://www.rollitup.org/politics/572476-house-gop-votes-cut-funding.html

house GOP votes to cut funding for embassy security, cries about embassy security

"In the 2011 continuing resolution, Congress, at the insistence of the House of Representatives, slashed the president’s request for embassy security and construction and forced another cut in fiscal year 2012. Altogether Congress has eliminated $296 million from embassy security and construction in the last two years with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts."

you assholes.

Yes, your link is relevant.
So given the lack of funds, she should have pulled them out of there.
She knows she's guilty, that's why she copped a plea...
You don't cop a plea if your innocent.
She should resign.
Case Closed.

kentm says

15   1:59pm Tue 16 Oct 2012   SHARE   Quote   Permalink   Like   Dislike   Delete   
RELEVANT:

http://www.rollitup.org/politics/572476-house-gop-votes-cut-funding.html

house GOP votes to cut funding for embassy security, cries about embassy security

Benghazi was not hostile, per se. One of the militias in town was. That militia was run out of town by a mob after the attack. Benghazi really loved Stevens. (That was the general thrust of the signs they were waving as they marched on Ansar Al-Sharia's compound and evicted the fuckers.) He was there when the revolution was going poorly, and probably got a lot of credit for NATO coming in and saving everyone's lives. Personally, I suspect that's why he went there on 9/11 of all days, despite the ambiguous security situation. Being something of a local hero surely would help one feel comfortable in a place.

Libya is a complicated place these days.

Clinton did not deny them aid on 9/11. You simply invented that.

Hold a moment. You spout bullshit like Shrek. Are you Shrek?

SoftShell says

Yes, your link is relevant.

So given the lack of funds, she should have pulled them out of there.

She knows she's guilty, that's why she copped a plea...

You don't cop a plea if your innocent.

She should resign.

Case Closed.

right...

So then at the very least by your thinking this should have been another instance of Democrats cleaning up a republican mess.

Tell you what, I'll play, but first lets look at the other side of the aisle. I'll support your claim of clinton resigning over this if you support the claim that the entire republican congress needs to resign over it as well. That seems fair then by your reasoning. All responsible parties take the hit.

Also, you tell me one instance in recent history of a republican actually admitting guilt on a screw up and then taking responsibility. Am I exaggerating?

Who brought up partisan politics?
We are talking about a specific occurance.
Try to stay on topic and be less biased.

So then at the very least by your thinking this should have been another instance of Democrats cleaning up a republican mess.

SoftShell says

Try to stay on topic and be less biased.

Something about people and living in glass houses?

I find it eternally amusing how the libbers here cannot focus on a single event, and provide a opinion without diverging off into other events that have a different set of circumstances and are not compatible for comparison.

This confirms the original opinion of the post, that clinton should resign, and that the detractors of this opinion have nothing relevant to offer for a defense.

lostand confused says

SoftShell says

Try to stay on topic and be less biased.

Something about people and living in glass houses?

Well you provide a lot of amusement to a lot of folks here. Multiple user names and the same tripe.
SoftShell says

I find it eternally amusing how the libbers here cannot focus on a single event, and provide a opinion without diverging off into other events that have a different set of circumstances and are not compatible for comparison.

This confirms the original opinion of the post, that clinton should resign, and that the detractors of this opinion have nothing relevant to offer for a defense.

lostand confused says

SoftShell says

Try to stay on topic and be less biased.

Something about people and living in glass houses?

Thanks for confirming your inability to stay on topic.

lostand confused says

Well you provide a lot of amusement to a lot of folks here. Multiple user names and the same tripe.

SoftShell says

Thanks for confirming your inability to stay on topic

Your most welcome. Ain't your forum, you don't get to make the rules about who says what and when. Free speech and all?

"Clinton should resign"

This is so stupid.

Bush was far more reponsible for allowing 9/11 to happen than Hillary or Obama was for this, even though they aren't really comparable. That is, 9/11 was a much larger attack on our own soil.

Read Richard Clark if you refuse to comprehend how closely tied to Bushes incompetence the 9/11 attack was. Yes, he was directly told it was going to happen.

The diffence here is that CLinton and Obama both take reponsibility, saying that they take reponsibility.

Only dirtbag republicas make this kind of thing a political issue (see Romney - the day of the Bangazi attacks) . Democrats knew the extent to which 9/11 was indirectly Bushes fault, but they knew it was a national tragedy, and in spite even of feeling that his even being President was questionable (Gore won the popular vote - and Florida was questionable), they still didn't try to make it a political issue.

We are constantly presented with this difference in integrity and character between the typical democratic politician and the typical republican.

Softewhell is probably from a similar mold, or he is a closet liberal trying to make republican commentators as unrespectable as repulican politicians.

uhhh...it is my thread.
but don't worry, i don't censure anybody.
feel free to fling!

lostand confused says

SoftShell says

Thanks for confirming your inability to stay on topic

Your most welcome. Ain't your forum, you don't get to make the rules about who says what and when. Free speech and all?

It should be easy enough to fend off the hordes scaling the embassy walls:

And so Bush didn't resign when he fucked up and let the towers fall even though he was presented with evidence of an eminent attack...

But you want Hillary to go because the people under her (the security experts) failed to anticipate a coordinated attack that we had no prior information about.

Genius, pure genius. I stand by my comment in the other post.. You republicans are MORONS.

SoftShell says

uhhh...it is my thread.
but don't worry, i don't censure anybody.
feel free to fling!

You seem to be confused about the concept of ownership. Kids do that-take a thing in a house and say mine. Doesn't make it theirs.

You bring up one aspect and the moment somebody brings up a counter to your silly point, delve into fits about thread going off topic . I know can't argue-so resort to the same old , same old right wing tactic.

nice misdirection...

no, we want hillary to go because on 9/11 an embassy in a semi-hostile country requested additional security and they were denied by hillary, as she has accepted full responsibility, and they were not evacuated, and eventually killed.

gbenson says

But you want Hillary to go because the people under her (the security experts) failed to anticipate a coordinated attack that we had no prior information about.

the topic is about the syrian embassy fuckup.
not about bush, clinton, WWI or WWII...
what's so hard about discussing the merits of the actions on that date?

you know, unique incidents can be discussed without resorting to ill-fitting comparisons to long-past events.

But I understand your need to muddy the waters with these historical events, because there is no defensible position for the Syrian incident.

lostand confused says

SoftShell says

uhhh...it is my thread.

but don't worry, i don't censure anybody.

feel free to fling!

You seem to be confused about the concept of ownership. Kids do that-take a thing in a house and say mine. Doesn't make it theirs.

You bring up one aspect and the moment somebody brings up a counter to your silly point, delve into fits about thread going off topic . I know can't argue-so resort to the same old , same old right wing tactic.

SoftShell says

the topic is about the syrian embassy fuckup.
not about bush, clinton, WWI or WWII...
what's so hard about discussing the merits of the actions on that date?
you know, unique incidents can be discussed without resorting to ill-fitting comparisons to long-past events.
But I understand your need to muddy the waters with these historical events, because there is no defensible position for the Syrian incident.

I understand your need to take one event that fits your narrative in total isolation of all reality and hold it up and disect it till the cows come home.

But life is a continuum. It does not start and end with one event, despite your beleif that it does.

My narrative remains in isolation because you refuse to discuss it on it's own merits.

why don't you start a thread on a specific event, and i'll show you how it can be discussed without muddying the waters with non-similar events.

I love to educate the uneducated.

lostand confused says

I understand your need to take one event that fits your narrative in total isolation of all reality and hold it up and disect it till the cows come home.

There was likely both an intelligence failure and related to that a security failure. When the investigation is completed and if it shows that there was a warning that was ignored and that Clinton ignored it or inadequately prepared for it, yes she should resign. That is very very unlikely There are many layers below Clinton that deal with security matters, these people are not usually political appointees but career State Dept. people. Yes the buck stops at the top but without direct involvement there will be no direct consequence. Never (that I can remember) has that happened before and it will not happen now.

Clinton will be gone after Jan anyway, she will not serve another term as Secretary of State regardless of the outcome of the election. She and Bill clearly want Obama to win. If she decides to run for POTUS it is normally easier if the position is open rather than running against an incumbent.

SoftShell says

My narrative remains in isolation because you refuse to discuss it on it's own merits.
why don't you start a thread on a specific event, and i'll show you how it can be discussed without muddying the waters with non-similar events.
I love to educate the uneducated.

LOL! You won't even see the folly in your position and now you are going to educate the uneducated. How cute.

Your name sez it all......
Case Closed.

lostand confused says

SoftShell says

My narrative remains in isolation because you refuse to discuss it on it's own merits.

why don't you start a thread on a specific event, and i'll show you how it can be discussed without muddying the waters with non-similar events.

I love to educate the uneducated.

LOL! You won't even see the folly in your position and now you are going to educate the uneducated. How cute.

I asked you point blank if you are Shrek. Are you Shrek?

SoftShell says

Your name sez it all......
Case Closed.

Personal attacks. LOL!! Case closed.

What part of "SoftShell" do you not understand??

msilenus says

I asked you point blank if you are Shrek. Are you Shrek?

So referring to a name that you gave yourself and want to be known as, is now a personal attack? LOLOL

lostand confused says

SoftShell says

Your name sez it all......

Case Closed.

Personal attacks. LOL!! Case closed.

SoftShell says

So referring to a name that you gave yourself and want to be known as, is now a personal attack? LOLOL

You were going to educate the uneducated?? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

That is not a 'no.' It is a bullshit false insinuation that someone cannot post under multiple accounts, masquerading as an answer.

Positing that you are Shrek: you posted surely thousands of comments here. What does it say about them, that you refuse to acknowledge your patrimony for those public thoughts? That you first ignore and then dodge when someone asks if you're the real father.

What does that say about you? Your intellectual honesty? Your integrity? Your self-respect?

I said it before: it always seems to be the folks around here who are ostensibly about personal responsibility, who slough off an identity like a snake shedding its skin. The problem is that it does no good. When you shed only the skin, you leave the core unimproved. That core: intellectual, moral --is you. You can post a million posts, under a thousand names, and they will all, ultimately, become more bastard orphans of your mind. You will never say anything that you will, in the long run, be proud to call your own.

SoftShell says

What part of "SoftShell" do you not understand??

msilenus says

I asked you point blank if you are Shrek. Are you Shrek?

Hilary may have taken the downfall but she added the air "but".
The Clinton are No martyrs

your drooling again sonny....wipe your chin.

lostand confused says

SoftShell says

So referring to a name that you gave yourself and want to be known as, is now a personal attack? LOLOL

You were going to educate the uneducated?? LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

So you are incapable of determining my answer to your question by any method other than a "yes/no" reply?
Do you realize how stupid this makes you appear?

msilenus says

That is not a 'no.' It is a bullshit false insinuation that someone cannot post under multiple accounts, masquerading as an answer.

What does it say about you, that you would waste so much time and energy attempting to tear down someone based upon a 'posit'?

Tell us exactly just what happened in your childhood to make you such an angry man?

We can help.

msilenus says

Positing that you are Shrek: you posted surely thousands of comments here. What does it say about them, that you refuse to acknowledge your patrimony for those public thoughts? That you first ignore and then dodge when someone asks if you're the real father.

What does that say about you? Your intellectual honesty? Your integrity? Your self-respect?

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, so I'm going to make this easy.
The answer to your question is:
No.

msilenus says

That is not a 'no.' It is a bullshit false insinuation that someone cannot post under multiple accounts, masquerading as an answer.

Oh boy, you are a funny one Abe. You just keep us all in stitches. Anyway it HAS been reported that comrade Clinton Warned that republican budget cuts would endanger security.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2011/02/secretary-clinton-house-republ.html

But I suppose you won't care about that And will quickly get back to your usual posts of "gurgle gurgle snort gurgle har har larg..." I'd like to be around one day when it hits you, "gosh, I've been a fucking idiot"

Of course he doesn't.
It's Smokescreen City for all the bluebloods around here...
but it's understandable...
there is no defense for Clinton's non-action in libya on the anniversary of 9/11.

Call it Crazy says

Do you have any proof that these cuts were put in force???

Why yes, "softshell", in a post you responded to, idiot.

kentm says

RELEVANT:

http://www.rollitup.org/politics/572476-house-gop-votes-cut-funding.html

house GOP votes to cut funding for embassy security, cries about embassy security

"In the 2011 continuing resolution, Congress, at the insistence of the House of Representatives, slashed the president’s request for embassy security and construction and forced another cut in fiscal year 2012. Altogether Congress has eliminated $296 million from embassy security and construction in the last two years with additional cuts in other State Department security accounts."

you assholes.

SoftShell says

Yes, your link is relevant.

So given the lack of funds, she should have pulled them out of there.

She knows she's guilty, that's why she copped a plea...

You don't cop a plea if your innocent.

She should resign.

Case Closed.

idiot. You're apparently not capable of remembering or being consistent with your own posts. How can you claim to have any credence with any of the topics you post on? You ARE looking like shrek more and more with every post.