Moderator Marley23 did well to close that thread because it was
full of the kind of extremism that I saw frequently in USENET.
Calling the SecState Hildabeast, Hitlery, and Hilarious is good humor
but it is not very edifying.
I offer a voice of reason. I am not going to vote for Hillary for two
reasons. The first is the 2008 campaign for the Demo presidential
candidacy. Hillary’s campaign organization was in a state of complete
mismanagement. It was like Jimmy Carter’s divided administration
which lasted for years.
The second reason is Bengazi. The buck should have stopped at Hillary’s
desk. She should have admitted “I screwed up on Libya” and then
she should have conducted her own investigation and shakedown of
State. She should have fired (oops! I mean “ask to resign”) those who
were guilty of incompetence. If the fingers pointed to the CIA, then she
should have threatened to resign if Obama rejected the facts of the disgraceful
handling of the Bengazi debacle. What a bloody mess. A dead American
ambassador in a radical country that was having a successful régime change.
Yet what apparently has been demonstrated includes:
That the story about the attack originating from a demonstration sparked by an offensive video (as promulgated by Obama, Hillary & Susan Rice) was entirely false
That this story was entirely inconsistent with what was observed by those present during the attack
That no evidence of a demonstration linked to a video ever existed
That the talking points were edited to remove reference to the true story and insert reference to the fictional video demonstration
So it appears there are just two possibilities: spectacular incompetence, or malfeasance.
Or it might have been possible that there was classified information involved, and that unlike Darrell Issa, this administration cares more about human lives than politics.
Or it might have been that the administration didn’t want to show its hand too soon by letting Ansar al-Sharia know that they knew they were involved.
Or it might have been that the government isn’t omnipotent, and the day after the attack took place they had reason to suspect that the violent attack against a diplomatic building in Benghazi just might be related to the violent attacks on diplomatic buildings in dozens of other countries on the very same day.
In any event, if the worst thing about the administration’s actions re:Benghazi that the GOP can prove to be true is “they weren’t entirely candid in their initial press release”, then I’d say it’s time to stop beating a dead horse.
I probably won’t vote for Hillary either, at least not in the primaries. Benghazi has nothing to do with it. Despite following the story fairly closely, I see no evidence of any mismanagement (or worse) from sec Clinton or President Obama.
Certainly she’d receive some criticism for it, as she should, but frankly I think it would be more likely to hurt her chances at getting the nomination than winning if she gets the nomination.
Most of the people who’d be really upset at her for being a “Pretendian” are probably Democrats who would still vote for a “Pretendian” over a Republican. I suspect many Native Americans would not be thrilled but they’re so few in number that it probably wouldn’t matter.
That said, it would be quite hilarious if Chuck Norris, who’s also almost certainly a “Pretendian” like Warren suffering from Indian Princess syndrome, got to interview her via Fox News.
4 years from now it’ll be even older news than it is now and if it didn’t hurt her against Scott Brown it probably won’t hurt her in 2016, particularly since, at worst, she seems to be guilty of nothing other than believing in some far-fetched family folklore like quite a few white people from that area. I think something like 20% of all white people in Oklahoma think they’re of Native American ancestry and nationwide something like 10% of all African-Americans think they are as well.
So the UN Ambassador went on Sunday talk shows and stated the attacks were in reaction to a video. There were indeed other demonstration in other places due to that video. So the Benghazi attack wasn’t due to the video, as facts later emerged. So the talking points that Rice read were erroneous. So…fucking…what? Did Rice’s statements alter the course of history in any way whatsoever? No. Did they impede the investigation? No.
According to Republicans, any time there is a violent incident anywhere, we’re supposed to start our stopwatch and time Obama as he sprints to a microphone to utter the word “terrorism”. This is because… well nobody can tell us but it’s a BIG FUCKING DEAL to utter the word “terrorism” as soon as humanely possible, just as it was Mitt Romney’s job to sprint to a microphone every month when the unemployment rates came out.
Guess what, Republicans? All this gnashing of the teeth about Benghazi is just a big circle jerk among those who would never vote for Hillary in the first place. She’s going to run, she’s going to win, and she’s going to be re-elected in 2020.
Unless more damning evidence comes up, I seriously doubt it.
Robert Gates, a Republican who was SecDef under both Bush and Obama, and is currently the Chancellor of William and Mary has argued that those who think that Secretary Clinton could have somehow gotten military assets into position to stop the attack have a “cartoonish impression” of the capabilities of the the US military.
Are we going to have to hear about that fake-Indian-ancestry thing over and over and over for 4 to 8 years?