Clinton should resign
invite response
2012 Oct 16, 12:39am 33,996 views 91 comments
by Y ➕follow (4) 💰tip ignore
« First « Previous Comments 23 - 62 of 91 Next » Last » Search these comments
Y
2012 Oct 16, 11:03pm
Thanks for confirming your inability to stay on topic.
Well you provide a lot of amusement to a lot of folks here. Multiple user names and the same tripe.
lostand confused
2012 Oct 16, 11:05pm
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?
marcus
2012 Oct 16, 11:15pm
"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.
Y
2012 Oct 16, 11:54pm
uhhh...it is my thread.
but don't worry, i don't censure anybody.
feel free to fling!
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?
zzyzzx
2012 Oct 16, 11:59pm
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.
lostand confused
2012 Oct 17, 12:35am
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.
Y
2012 Oct 17, 1:36am
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.
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.
Y
2012 Oct 17, 1:41am
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.
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.
lostand confused
2012 Oct 17, 2:02am
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.
Y
2012 Oct 17, 2:17am
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.
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.
lostand confused
2012 Oct 17, 2:20am
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.
Y
2012 Oct 17, 2:36am
Your name sez it all......
Case Closed.
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.
Y
2012 Oct 17, 2:42am
What part of "SoftShell" do you not understand??
I asked you point blank if you are Shrek. Are you Shrek?
Y
2012 Oct 17, 2:43am
So referring to a name that you gave yourself and want to be known as, is now a personal attack? LOLOL
Your name sez it all......
Case Closed.
Personal attacks. LOL!! Case closed.
lostand confused
2012 Oct 17, 2:46am
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!!!!!!!!!!!
msilenus
2012 Oct 17, 3:09am
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.
What part of "SoftShell" do you not understand??
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
Y
2012 Oct 17, 9:32pm
your drooling again sonny....wipe your chin.
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!!!!!!!!!!!
Y
2012 Oct 17, 9:36pm
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?
That is not a 'no.' It is a bullshit false insinuation that someone cannot post under multiple accounts, masquerading as an answer.
Y
2012 Oct 17, 9:40pm
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.
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?
Y
2012 Oct 17, 10:28pm
I'm starting to feel sorry for you, so I'm going to make this easy.
The answer to your question is:
No.
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"
Y
2012 Oct 19, 12:16am
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.
Do you have any proof that these cuts were put in force???
Why yes, "softshell", in a post you responded to, idiot.
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.
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.
Y
2012 Oct 19, 1:31am
heh heh heh..
yes, you are right.
try programming for 12 hours on 7-11 coffee and see where your head winds up...
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.
And I apologize for saying 'idiot'. It's just you come out so aggressively and say these stupid things...
You know, shrek was a programmer too...
It has since come out that the people at the CIA were getting really pissed because they kept warning the Bush admin that something was going on and kept getting rebuffed. When some of the CIA execs started to press the issue to be heard, the Bushies asked them to be 'reassigned' or excluded from meetings.
Y
2012 Dec 27, 3:33am
"Soft Ruki"??
We don't need to know your anatomical pet names.....
Listen Soft RUKI! You moron, stop TROLLING my thread and posting bullshit.
Y
2012 Dec 27, 3:58am
"Soft Ruki"??
We don't need to know your anatomical pet names.....
Listen Soft RUKI! You moron, stop TROLLING my thread and posting bullshit.
an AR-15 is a Human hunting rifle!
Considering how overpopulated we are, maybe this is a good thing.
There is no human dignity in this comment.
He has no honor or dignity, he is plainly soulless..
David Losh
2012 Dec 27, 4:44am
She has obviously done this to take the heat off Obama.
I never got the connection to Obama. It makes no sense that with all that is going on in the world, that he should have been watching only the embassy in Benghazi.
If you recall there were protests across North Africa, and every one was asking for added security. I have never seen that as a part of the reporting, but hey, it makes no difference.
Hillary is gone and Kerry will take over so you get your wish.
Thedaytoday
2012 Dec 27, 7:12am
Clinton should resign!
LMFAO just like Condoleezza Rice did
Just like Ronald Reagan did over Iran Contra?
Come now Softshel you want political equality look at your own Republican history.
« First « Previous Comments 23 - 62 of 91 Next » Last » Search these comments
Hillary has accepted full responsibility for failing to provide the requested additional security for the US embassy in Libya. She has obviously done this to take the heat off Obama. The ambassador has died due to this negligence. She should resign immediately, but has not. WTF????
#politics