- Joined
- Feb 28, 2013
- Messages
- 1,285
- Reaction score
- 566
- Location
- Southwest AZ
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Major league f-up. Not criminal.
How many more Americans would have had to get killed for it to become 'criminal' ???????
Major league f-up. Not criminal.
That depends on Clinton's political viability in 2016. If she is running, no amount would rise to the level of criminality. This is all in the interest of the greater good, of course. We must have a democrat in the WH, it must be a woman, and it must be Hillary. Besides, what difference does it make?How many more Americans would have had to get killed for it to become 'criminal' ???????
How many more Americans would have had to get killed for it to become 'criminal' ???????
How many more Americans would have had to get killed for it to become 'criminal' ???????
No doubt. My statement is an evaluation of your concerns, which are reflected in your last sentence. Clinton's future political prospects have nothing whatever to do with the events which transpired in Benghazi. That you addressed her future while analyzing Benghazi speaks to exactly what I mentioned.
What’s your take on Benghazi?
It's not the number, it's the situation and the actions. A decision was made about embassy security, and it was the wrong decision. But I don't want a situation where every decision made by the President is reviewable by Congress, regardless of anyone's political affiliation.
If the same decisions were made and nobody died, would that make it OK with you? I suspect it would barely even be a story if that were the case. The criminality is based on the decisions made and the reasons for them, not the results.
A desparate plea was made for help, and it was ignored. If that was not criminal, it was no doubt cowardly.
I mentioned the former Secretary of State, because there are conspiracy theories being promoted of a "cover up" (no evidence from the official investigation) to "protect" her.
Benghazi ‘cover-up to protect Hillary’
You don't. The 2nd sentence is just your opinion. In general, putting aside wording of explanations, a useful argument should contain compelling evidence. A good response should have compelling evidence. That is not the case with your response.I do. The 2nd sentence explains it. In general, putting aside wording of questions, a useful poll should contain a response that accurately reflects the situation about which a question is being asked. That is not the case with this poll.
Of course you are. He's vague, PC, and you share the same sense of balance: slightly to the Left.Hi Don, nice to see you as always. How would you summarize the situation? You tend to have a refreshingly honest, straightforward, balanced view and I am really curious as to hear your thoughts.
You don't. The 2nd sentence is just your opinion. In general, putting aside wording of explanations, a useful argument should contain compelling evidence. A good response should have compelling evidence. That is not the case with your response.
Well, actual Libertarians can. It's the ones that think the word "libertarian" is just a cooler sounding way to say "Republican" that you have to watch out for.
Or they can simply trash George Bush on a Barack Obama related thread. It's allowed, and it's also liberal.
A screw up that will not effect the Teflon in Chief.
Ever considered why it won't effect the Teflon in Chief or any Teflon in Chief? Because making mistakes is not a criminal act.
Of course you are. He's vague, PC, and you share the same sense of balance: slightly to the Left.
What’s your take on Benghazi?
probably because the commander in chief was too busy preparing for re election.It's complex. But based on the information currently available, I'd summarize it as follows:
1) Planning for security, etc., was somewhat chaotic and disorganized prior to the attacks.
and the commander in chief was on the campaign trail.2) Once the terrorist attack was underway, there was no effective way to do more to rescue those under attack. U.S. fighter jets were in Italy.
But Barack Obama was re elected, which is all the Left really cared about to begin with.3) The messaging afterwards was not very good. Subsequent accounts had to be revised. The gap between the early accounts and later accounts had an impact on credibility. That gap was also exploited in the partisan jockeying, both in Washington and by political pundits along idealogical or partisan lines.
Because everyone knows the commander in chief had damn good reason for dragging his feet on his ambassador's request for more security.4) There was an investigation and recommendations were made. The focus should be on learning from what happened, not tilting at windmills aimed a politicizing what was a terrible tragedy.
I'd love to hear Chris Stevens' take on this cold analysis.In terms of long-term political impact, I do not believe the Benghazi attacks will have any serious adverse impact should former Secretary of State Clinton seek the Presidency.