• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists[W:130]

Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Well I am sorry, unless you are an expert in those fields, you have the credibility to criticize her.

So one needs to be an expert in a given field to be able to give an opinion? Im sure all of your opinions on Bush are because you are an expert. :lol:
Much like your unique ability to know racial code words, without ever stating what those words are.

Heres the news, it brings up legitimate concerns about her abilities, as it should. And if she wants to be president, they will be brought up.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Try again.....She is a SERVANT of the People. When she spills the Milk or Misses putting the food on the plate. I definitely have the Right to criticize her.

Look you want to know what Hillary did that was something she was Right about. Read the Latest book on her.....you will find out with the Issue of Egypt and the MB. Then how she corrected Obama and woke his ass up to the facts there. Now that is something you can Hillary credit for. She knew what was up with the Egyptians.

How are you going to tell one that shed blood for this country.....who he can criticize? Do you know how foolish that sounds.

Pbrauer makes me laugh, at least he does that much.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Pbrauer makes me laugh, at least he does that much.

Well, and he keeps activity going around here.....so that is a good thing. ;)
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

No, it was her frustration at being pressed to tell the truth.
No, it wasn't. It was due to being asked the same question she had already answered, when it was clear the only reason it was being asked in the first place was for political purposes.

An uncomfortable truth she knows illustrates her incompetence and a truth she did not want to tell.
So CIA talking points and classified documents qualify as incompetence now? How does that even make sense?

So, instead, she attempted to belittle the notion that knowing what occurred is in any way relevant to ensuring it doesn't happen again.
What she belittled was the repeat asking of an irrelevant and political question which had already been answered.
She uttered the words. Playing behind the ole "bias partisans" flame is like a left wing partisan hack suggesting they are a moderate on a forum.
Taking words out of context, twisting them to mean something not intended, is dishonest. For anyone to suggest otherwise is silly.

By the way, if you don't like the truth that's fine, but ridiculous personal attacks against me aren't necessary, are they? Calling me a hack because I prefer context and truth, instead of some fictional right wing narrative, is absurd. I suggest you recant your false and baseless accusation.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Moderator's Warning:
Stop the personal comments and baiting and please return to the subject, which is not each other.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Well I am sorry, unless you are an expert in those fields, you have the credibility to criticize her.

Hillary Clinton is an asshole. What else do you need to know?
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

No, it wasn't. It was due to being asked the same question she had already answered, when it was clear the only reason it was being asked in the first place was for political purposes.

Yes, asked repeatedly about...because she failed to answer.

So CIA talking points and classified documents qualify as incompetence now? How does that even make sense?

CIA talking points that have been shown to have been written by the white house.

What she belittled was the repeat asking of an irrelevant and political question which had already been answered.

What she did was attempt to avoid a question that is central to the event and that she has obfuscated, avoided, and refused to answer accurately.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Yes, asked repeatedly about...because she failed to answer.



CIA talking points that have been shown to have been written by the white house.



What she did was attempt to avoid a question that is central to the event and that she has obfuscated, avoided, and refused to answer accurately.

Its remarkable how little lefties seem to know about this incident, isnt it?

And then they argue based on feelings, it should be a learning lesson.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Yes, asked repeatedly about...because she failed to answer.
But she did answer it. She just didn't give the answer Johnson wanted.

Here was the original question: "Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?"

Here was the multitude of answers:

"There was discussion going on afterwards, but once the investigation started, the FBI spoke to them before we spoke to them, and so other than our people in Tripoli -- which, I think you're talking about Washington, right?"

"We did not think it was appropriate for us to talk to them before the FBI conducted their interviews. And we did not -- I think this is accurate, sir -- I certainly did not know of any reports that contradicted the IC [Intelligence Community] talking points at the time that Ambassador Rice went on the TV shows."

"Senator, you know, when you're in these positions, the last thing you want to do is interfere with any other process going on, number one--"

"Well, no, it's the fact. Number two, I would recommend highly you read both what the ARB said about it and the classified ARB because, even today, there are questions being raised. Now, we have no doubt they were terrorists, they were militants, they attacked us, they killed our people. But what was going on and why they were doing what they were doing is still unknown"
Hillary's 'What Difference Does It Make' in Context | Alan Colmes

Clinton had answered the question multiple times.

CIA talking points that have been shown to have been written by the white house.
Uhh, no, they were shown to have been written by the CIA. They underwent "revisions" and the recently released e-mail which has been made a big ado about nothing noted how some in the White House wanted to make sure the focus was on protests, but the intelligence and the talking points came from the CIA. These are just facts.

What she did was attempt to avoid a question that is central to the event and that she has obfuscated, avoided, and refused to answer accurately.
See above. She answered it accurately. Johnson just was trying to get her to say something which would hurt politically (which she did to people unconcerned about context of words) and once Johnson was satisfied the question became a political football, he quit asking questions. Hillary said NOTHING different in the full "what difference does it make" paragraph she hadn't already said once or twice before, but once she gave a soundbite which Johnson/Republicans thought they could use to the ignorants who would never look for the full context of the quote, then Johnson was done.

It was simply political. Nothing Clinton said was offensive and anyone saying otherwise is simply not interested in truth, only partisanship. Which is what I said from the very beginning.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

What would I recant? Calling a left wing extremist isn't a slur as far as I know? Maybe it will become one. Hillary's word are not misconstrued, not being used falsely, for they mearly illustrate how she intends to handle adversity and her own mishaps. Any way your post comes off as one hurt by being labeled with your beliefs. It makes me wonder why you'd be hurt with a political leaning you so continuously promote?

No, it wasn't. It was due to being asked the same question she had already answered, when it was clear the only reason it was being asked in the first place was for political purposes.

So CIA talking points and classified documents qualify as incompetence now? How does that even make sense?

What she belittled was the repeat asking of an irrelevant and political question which had already been answered.
Taking words out of context, twisting them to mean something not intended, is dishonest. For anyone to suggest otherwise is silly.

By the way, if you don't like the truth that's fine, but ridiculous personal attacks against me aren't necessary, are they? Calling me a hack because I prefer context and truth, instead of some fictional right wing narrative, is absurd. I suggest you recant your false and baseless accusation.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Uhh, no, they were shown to have been written by the CIA. They underwent "revisions" and the recently released e-mail which has been made a big ado about nothing noted how some in the White House wanted to make sure the focus was on protests, but the intelligence and the talking points came from the CIA. These are just facts.

BS. The State Dept. told the Libyan government within hours of the attack that it was by a terrorist group affiliated with Al Qaeda.

Days later, Clinton looked the parents of the murdered men in the eye and told them she would make sure the maker of the video would go to jail when she knew the video had nothing to do with it.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

What would I recant? Calling a left wing extremist isn't a slur as far as I know?
Calling someone a liar, as you did, is most definitely a personal attack. You very clearly insinuated I'm a liar because I care about context, not political rhetoric.

Hillary's word are not misconstrued
Absolutely they are. I've proven that multiple times in this thread.

Any way your post comes off as one hurt by being labeled with your beliefs. It makes me wonder why you'd be hurt with a political leaning you so continuously promote?
The only leaning I promote is one dedicated to the facts. I cannot help it if right now a Democrat is in office and the Republicans are constantly having to lie in order to get him out of office. I have no doubt when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats will do the same thing.

But the fact is that right now, most of the lies and misinformation are coming from the right wing. So when I enter a thread to correct those spewing false information, and they happen to be right wing, that says far more about the willingness of those practicing team politics than it does about my own personal political leanings.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

You show me where I called you a liar and I'll apologize accordingly. Stating your opinion is wrong is my right. Hilda uttered the words for all to hear. I don't even put them in context, and only one so extreme as to blindly defend her at all costs to their integrity would try to apply her words to a context that doesn't matter.

Hilda's refusal to label these terrorists as such is merely a second simple indication of how she would fail to handle serious issues of our time.


Calling someone a liar, as you did, is most definitely a personal attack. You very clearly insinuated I'm a liar because I care about context, not political rhetoric.

Absolutely they are. I've proven that multiple times in this thread.

The only leaning I promote is one dedicated to the facts. I cannot help it if right now a Democrat is in office and the Republicans are constantly having to lie in order to get him out of office. I have no doubt when the shoe is on the other foot, the Democrats will do the same thing.

But the fact is that right now, most of the lies and misinformation are coming from the right wing. So when I enter a thread to correct those spewing false information, and they happen to be right wing, that says far more about the willingness of those practicing team politics than it does about my own personal political leanings.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

What would I recant? Calling a left wing extremist isn't a slur as far as I know?

It's a polite and subtle way of saying a person is of very low intelligence and has little or no knowledge of history or human behavior. We all know it but cannot actually say it, so it acts as a sort of shorthand.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Well I am sorry, unless you are an expert in those fields, you have the credibility to criticize her.

I can crticize her ****ing ass all I want. It's my patriotic duty to crticize her, according to...uh...her!
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Well I am sorry, unless you are an expert in those fields, you have the credibility to criticize her.

The problems remain that Hillary is not an expert anywhere outside of Arkansas and cannot follow advice either. But I envy her air miles.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

I don't recall conservatives being in an uproar when the Christian, Joseph Kony, was running around Uganda kidnapping hundreds of thousands of children for use as child soldiers and sex slaves. But I guess there was no unhealthy obsession with blaming Hillary Clinton for every bad thing that happens in the world back then either.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

I don't recall conservatives being in an uproar when the Christian, Joseph Kony, was running around Uganda kidnapping hundreds of thousands of children for use as child soldiers and sex slaves. But I guess there was no unhealthy obsession with blaming Hillary Clinton for every bad thing that happens in the world back then either.

Perhaps you should start a thread about Joseph Kony and those who care can contribute.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

But she did answer it. She just didn't give the answer Johnson wanted.

Right. He wanted the truth.

Here was the original question: "Did anybody in the State Department talk to those folks very shortly afterwards?"

Here was the multitude of answers:


Hillary's 'What Difference Does It Make' in Context*|*Alan Colmes

Clinton had answered the question multiple times.

In every answer she is evading. I was watching it real time, I saw it plain as day.

Uhh, no, they were shown to have been written by the CIA. They underwent "revisions" and the recently released e-mail which has been made a big ado about nothing noted how some in the White House wanted to make sure the focus was on protests, but the intelligence and the talking points came from the CIA. These are just facts.

The revisions have been lied about...and there is now every indication that these "revisions" were essentially revising a blank piece of paper into talking points. :shrug:

See above. She answered it accurately. Johnson just was trying to get her to say something which would hurt politically (which she did to people unconcerned about context of words) and once Johnson was satisfied the question became a political football, he quit asking questions. Hillary said NOTHING different in the full "what difference does it make" paragraph she hadn't already said once or twice before, but once she gave a soundbite which Johnson/Republicans thought they could use to the ignorants who would never look for the full context of the quote, then Johnson was done.

BS. Those answers don't answer anything...that's why she was pressed until she had her fit.

It was simply political. Nothing Clinton said was offensive and anyone saying otherwise is simply not interested in truth, only partisanship. Which is what I said from the very beginning.

Everything she has said regarding Benghazi is offensive.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Perhaps you should start a thread about Joseph Kony and those who care can contribute.

Didn't we have stuff up on Kony and the LRA?

Wouldn't it be something to see the LRA and Boko Haram come across one another.....huh?
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

I think a lot of people share your stance.

The bolded is what the Republican congress should be convening a committee on, instead of the umpteenth witch hunting expedition and raising political contributions on the deaths of these honorable Americans.

Here's what she said, as you quoted:

With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

Yep, that's true. It IS our job to figure out what happened. And that's exactly what the hearings are trying to accomplish.

Even in this quote she doesn't acknowledge a terrorist plot against the compound coinciding with 9/11...our failure of intelligence... inadequate protection in a volatile atmosphere. You don't think "What difference does it make" is 'in context' somehow. I think it's being taken in perfect context.

It makes a huge difference why it happened, what our intelligence knew and when they knew it, whether requests for more protection early on were ignored. A HUGE difference.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Here's what she said, as you quoted:



Yep, that's true. It IS our job to figure out what happened. And that's exactly what the hearings are trying to accomplish.

Even in this quote she doesn't acknowledge a terrorist plot against the compound coinciding with 9/11...our failure of intelligence... inadequate protection in a volatile atmosphere. You don't think "What difference does it make" is 'in context' somehow. I think it's being taken in perfect context.

It makes a huge difference why it happened, what our intelligence knew and when they knew it, whether requests for more protection early on were ignored. A HUGE difference.

BINGO, Maggie.
As I mentioned on another thread, by asking what difference does it make and then saying their job is to figure out what happened, she essentially contradicts herself and answers her own question ... but she gave her defenders something they can point to ... and they have been, as you have seen.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

BINGO, Maggie.
As I mentioned on another thread, by asking what difference does it make and then saying their job is to figure out what happened, she essentially contradicts herself and answers her own question ... but she gave her defenders something they can point to ... and they have been, as you have seen.


Truthfully B.....if we would have had a Select Committee back then.....she wouldn't have been able to pull that tantrum and get away with what she said. As she knows that committee could take measures Right then and there. Big difference.

Not to mention.....McCain and them didn't press the issue while talking about their own Careers and what they knew. She was willing to be chastised. Thinking that's all the weight she had to take.

Yet because BO said she was DA best Eva.....using the fact she flew All those miles. Seems some think she actually got things done? Running around and playing token hostess while at the State and getting some camera time.....does not make one a Secretary of State.

Just ask John Kerry. :lamo
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

You show me where I called you a liar and I'll apologize accordingly.
Playing behind the ole "bias partisans" flame is like a left wing partisan hack suggesting they are a moderate on a forum.
I await your apology.

Stating your opinion is wrong is my right.
Yes, but calling me a liar is still a personal attack.

Hilda uttered the words for all to hear. I don't even put them in context
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lamo:lamo

Oh my God...how in the hell do you not understand that's EXACTLY the point I'm making! Holy crap, you just made my point for me. You aren't interested in context, you don't care what she actually said, you just want to twist her words into a way your political team can use for a victory.

Unbelievable, I never thought someone would actually admit they don't care about the context of words when they are blatantly twisting them into something they are not. That cracked me up. Thank you for proving exactly what I've been saying this whole thread.
and only one so extreme as to blindly defend her at all costs to their integrity would try to apply her words to a context that doesn't matter.
:lamo

Seriously, you have to stop now, my side is hurting from laughing so much. The fact you are now saying that only extreme people care about putting words into the proper context shows you for exactly what you are. Only someone playing team politics or an incredibly dishonest person would take words out of context intentionally just to smear someone else because they don't agree with the letter behind their name. People who care about the truth will ALWAYS want to know the context of what is said.

Obviously you don't care about the truth, you just want to wear the Republican cheerleading costume. At least you're willing to admit it.
Right. He wanted the truth.
He got the truth. He just didn't get the "truth" he wanted.

In every answer she is evading. I was watching it real time, I saw it plain as day.
Then, much like Johnson, you only saw and heard what you wanted to hear. I watched it in real time as well, she gave direct answers to the best of her ability. You're just playing partisan games at this point.

The revisions have been lied about...and there is now every indication that these "revisions" were essentially revising a blank piece of paper into talking points.
No, there is not. Just because you don't like the truth, you're not entitled to make up your own and call it fact.

BS. Those answers don't answer anything
They answered the questions directly.

that's why she was pressed until she had her fit.
If that were true, how come he didn't continue to press her? She didn't say anything in her last paragraph she hadn't already said, why didn't he continue to press her?

Your answer is BS and we both know it.

Everything she has said regarding Benghazi is offensive.
Every lie being told about what she said is offensive to anyone interested in the truth.
 
Re: Hillary's State Department Refused to Brand Boko Haram as Terrorists

Here's what she said, as you quoted:



Yep, that's true. It IS our job to figure out what happened. And that's exactly what the hearings are trying to accomplish.

Even in this quote she doesn't acknowledge a terrorist plot against the compound coinciding with 9/11...our failure of intelligence... inadequate protection in a volatile atmosphere. You don't think "What difference does it make" is 'in context' somehow. I think it's being taken in perfect context.

It makes a huge difference why it happened, what our intelligence knew and when they knew it, whether requests for more protection early on were ignored. A HUGE difference.


Exactly. The best that you can take away from the Hilary quote is that she wants to figure out what went wrong so long and we don't blame her for it. She has zero tolerance for introspection which makes her absolute poison as a leader.
 
Back
Top Bottom