• 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 Faints and Sustains Concussion

ttwtt78640 said:
Somebody very high up in the state department did not wish to acknowledge that serious terroist threats were present in Banghazi and thus denied requests for additional security, or to pull our diplomatic personnel out of there, as the Red Cross and British, wisely did. It seems probable, although, of course, unprovable (with the information released to the public) that political pressure was applied to deny that a serious terrorist threat warranted added US security or was serious enough to withdraw our personnel. The end result was both predictable and avoidable. The nonsense that nobody knew of the threat or the request for more security is rediculous and, as with fast and fuzzy, a few midlevel pawns were sacrificed (allowed to resign/retire/be reassigned) to make it seem that "appropriate action" was taken. Nothing more to see here folks, please move along to the next exhibit, as your tour guide suggests you now look at...
Click to expand...

To make it simple for me, you are saying that they should've been pulled out or we should've had boots on the ground and that we didn't is the fault of...?

Also, give me motive for all this. Who stood to gain?
 
poweRob said:
To make it simple for me, you are saying that they should've been pulled out or we should've had boots on the ground and that we didn't is the fault of...?

Also, give me motive for all this. Who stood to gain?
Click to expand...

Who stood to gain was Obama, as his campaign/debate assertion was that all was well in Lybia, terrorism (specifically that akin to Al Qaeda) was not a problem there and was, in fact, "in decline" throughout the region. According to Obama, we were winning the war on terror and democracy was breaking out all over after the Arab spring; peace, love and tie dye were just over the horizon and etc. To acknowledge that terroists were as thick as theives and a chaotic mess was occuring right there in Benghazi was "not acceptable" to the POTUS and this was made clear to Hillary and many others, thus ambassador Rice got the call to duty to say Obama was right, no terror attack had occured in Benghazi, just a "spontaneous demonstration" gone wild had occured, just like in Cairo, now move along, nothing to see here folks...
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Who stood to gain was Obama, as his campaign/debate assertion was that all was well in Lybia, terrorism (specifically that akin to Al Qaeda) was not a problem there and was, in fact, "in decline" throughout the region. According to Obama, we were winning the war on terror and democracy was breaking out all over after the Arab spring; peace, love and tie dye were just over the horizon and etc. To acknowledge that terroists were as thick as theives and a chaotic mess was occuring right there in Benghazi was "not acceptable" to the POTUS and this was made clear to Hillary and many others, thus ambassador Rice got the call to duty to say Obama was right, no terror attack had occured in Benghazi, just a "spontaneous demonstration" gone wild had occured, just like in Cairo, now move along, nothing to see here folks...
Click to expand...

I see. So your conspiracy hypothesis is that Obama ordered a cover up to play down the attack as not being terrorist so as to win an election? Right?
 
poweRob said:
I see. So your conspiracy hypothesis is that Obama ordered a cover up to play down the attack as not being terrorist so as to win an election? Right?
Click to expand...

For whatever it is worth, my conspiracy theory is much better than that.......
 
the_recruit said:
Um, I wasn't actually being serious.

Please tell me you don't seriously believe she's faking a blood clot hospitalization.....right?
Click to expand...

I think that is the gist of some posting here.
 
Fisher said:
For whatever it is worth, my conspiracy theory is much better than that.......
Click to expand...

:lol:

I'm not beyond conspiracy belief. I have mine. On this one perhaps not but I have mine. Let's hear it? AND let's hear how you'd like it to bear out.
 
poweRob said:
I see. So your conspiracy hypothesis is that Obama ordered a cover up to play down the attack as not being terrorist so as to win an election? Right?
Click to expand...

Seems as good of an explanation as any offered. Just like fast & fuzzy was said to be simply a goof up and not intended to create a weapons "crisis" situation by having thousands of guns, easily traceable to the US just happen to get into cartel hands through "errors in judgement" rather than a as deliberate spark for a gun control debate. Too many things just do not add up in either situation, but poeple died in each making them pop into the news at very inopportune times. I am not a conspiracy nut but do not believe in well coordinated coincidences either. In both cases, nobody high up was ever aware of these events/situations, until well after the fan was soiled with excrement. Hmm...
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
Seems as good of an explanation as any offered. Just like fast & fuzzy was said to be simply a goof up and not intended to create a weapons "crisis" situation by having thousands of guns, easily traceable to the US just happen to get into cartel hands through "errors in judgement" rather than a as deliberate spark for a gun control debate. Too many things just do not add up in either situation, but poeple died in each making them pop into the news at very inopportune times. I am not a conspiracy nut but do not believe in well coordinated coincidences either. In both cases, nobody high up was ever aware of these events/situations, until well after the fan was soiled with excrement. Hmm...
Click to expand...

To put this together, I'm gathering that you believe that both fast and furious and benghazi were both NOT a matter of screwing up but rather hands on ****ing up from the administration.

okay... what would you like to have happen as a result of your theory coming true and to whom?
 
poweRob said:
To put this together, I'm gathering that you believe that both fast and furious and benghazi were both NOT a matter of screwing up but rather hands on ****ing up from the administration.

okay... what would you like to have happen as a result of your theory coming true and to whom?
Click to expand...

What I would like to have is faith in our huge federal gov't. All the talk of "taking responsibility" and "the buck stops here" from Hillary, Holder and Obama is simply smoke as they all weasel out of having any responsibility at all. It is rediculous to have no one either in charge of, or even aware of, what is going on. The excuses alone indicate outright incompetence, if not gross negligence leading to the death of others. If Watergate and "I did not have sex with that woman" warrant full blown special prosecutor or independent review investigations then these two fiascos certainly do, yet we doodle around with month after month of delay and meaningless hearings by inept congress critters that get handed nothing at all but excuses and referals to assistants or aides.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
What I would like to have is faith in our huge federal gov't. All the talk of "taking responsibility" and "the buck stops here" from Hillary, Holder and Obama is simply smoke as they all weasel out of having any responsibility at all. It is rediculous to have no one either in charge of, or even aware of, what is going on. The excuses alone indicate outright incompetence, if not gross negligence leading to the death of others. If Watergate and "I did not have sex with that woman" warrant full blown special prosecutor or independent review investigations then these two fiascos certainly do, yet we doodle around with month after month of delay and meaningless hearings by inept congress critters that get handed nothing at all but excuses and referals to assistants or aides.
Click to expand...

You know what would've been crazy, is if they lied about Benghazi and as a result we went to war in Algeria where thousands of Americans ended up dying and thousands upon thousands of Algerians ended up dying because we pursued a war based on that Benghazi lie.

Meh, that'd probably be washed under the bridge as well.
 
sounds like she is just trying to miss her testimony on Benghazi
 
poweRob said:
:lol:

I'm not beyond conspiracy belief. I have mine. On this one perhaps not but I have mine. Let's hear it? AND let's hear how you'd like it to bear out.
Click to expand...

I have stated it here at DP before. I believe that under the pretense of arming Libyan moderates to fight AQ forces we were actually secretly arming people to create enough mischief in Egypt to give the Egyptian military cause to bring down the democratically elected Islamic Brotherhood government since we could not retain an ounce of credibility going after a democratically elected government rising from the Arab Spring we supported. I can think of no other plausible reason why we would be handing out guns to citizens outside of the Libyan government involvement since we really would have no reason to be undermining the all but non-existent Libyan government. When things went south, the military was not allowed to go in because a US attack on Libyan civilians would have had so much blowback that the Libyan government would have collapsed and another more radical Islamic government would have taken its place, further solidifying the complete failure of the Arab Spring.

How would I like it to bear out? I want the Islamic Brotherhood out of power in Egypt, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon unless they are replaced with an even more radical element. I could give a flip about Libya or Egypt, but for the Suez Canal running through the latter. That waterway is so critical to Europe, and to a lesser degree, the US, that a protracted and expensive war/occupation will break out if it is ever held hostage.
 
Fisher said:
I have stated it here at DP before. I believe that under the pretense of arming Libyan moderates to fight AQ forces we were actually secretly arming people to create enough mischief in Egypt to give the Egyptian military cause to bring down the democratically elected Islamic Brotherhood government since we could not retain an ounce of credibility going after a democratically elected government rising from the Arab Spring we supported. I can think of no other plausible reason why we would be handing out guns to citizens outside of the Libyan government involvement since we really would have no reason to be undermining the all but non-existent Libyan government. When things went south, the military was not allowed to go in because a US attack on Libyan civilians would have had so much blowback that the Libyan government would have collapsed and another more radical Islamic government would have taken its place, further solidifying the complete failure of the Arab Spring.
Click to expand...

Now THAT is an interesting perspective. We have a looooongg history of undermining governments we decide we don't like or just propping up bad dictatorships around the world. Even if it were to bear out not being true, that'd be a helluva piece of paperback fiction to write up. Kind of Tom Clancy detailed write up.

Fisher said:
How would I like it to bear out? I want the Islamic Brotherhood out of power in Egypt, but it isn't going to happen anytime soon unless they are replaced with an even more radical element. I could give a flip about Libya or Egypt, but for the Suez Canal running through the latter. That waterway is so critical to Europe, and to a lesser degree, the US, that a protracted and expensive war/occupation will break out if it is ever held hostage.
Click to expand...

Buying friends seems to be cheaper than trying to kill enemies it seems.
 
danarhea said:
Yea, the longer she waits, the more damning for her....Yea, right!! She is presently in the hospital due to a blood clot in her brain, because of that fall you people say didn't happen. You say this isn't about politics but about honesty? Yea, right!!
Click to expand...

Yea I'm sure if Bush was scheduled to testify in the wake of the worst scandal since Watergate you'd give him the benefit of the doubt or something. Not.

You people are beclowning yourselves with this fake empathy/sympathy for Hillary. Maybe if you displayed the same supposed empathy and sympathy for the 4 Americans who were killed at Benghazi, and the hundreds of innocents killed by FNF weapons (including women and children), as well as for the families who were BLATANTLY LIED TO by Hillary and this corrupt administration, we'd buy your into nonsensical gibberish.
 
danarhea said:
Yea, the longer she waits, the more damning for her....Yea, right!! She is presently in the hospital due to a blood clot in her brain, because of that fall you people say didn't happen. You say this isn't about politics but about honesty? Yea, right!!
Click to expand...

Did you forget the timing of the First hearing? Any justifiable reason as to hold off on Calling for Immediate testimony from the SOS and SOD? That would be despite any Independent Investigation. See.....when you can't get around on holding off for any testimony. That might be a starting point.

Yes.....we have also watched an entire year where a Sport was dealing with Concussions all year long. You do understand that such applied to those that were involved in a physical sport and even more susceptible to that specific type of injury. Dealing with trauma to the brain. Note in the Contact physical sport that the only thing that the players were prevented from was with anything physical in nature.....correct? They still had to attend meetings, go over film, and deal with whatever strategy they were going with that.....just for that week.

Btw which other conditions were they going to monitor besides the medication for the blood clot?
 
poweRob said:
You know what would've been crazy, is if they lied about Benghazi and as a result we went to war in Algeria where thousands of Americans ended up dying and thousands upon thousands of Algerians ended up dying because we pursued a war based on that Benghazi lie.

Meh, that'd probably be washed under the bridge as well.
Click to expand...

You do realize, I hope, that Benghazi is a city in the country of Libya while Algeria is another country altogether. Agreed that your scenario would be crazy, but what makes this administration scary is the fact that your scenario is plausible.
 
Gina said:
I think that is the gist of some posting here.
Click to expand...

No idea whether Clinton has an issue with a blood clot or not. If she does, i wish her the best.

But viewing this from a strictly political tactics standpoint it does make for an interesting plot. She initially missed her scheduled testimony due to a concussion after passing out (details are sketchy). But her staff provided assurances that she would still testify.

Then Kerry was nominated as her replacement.

But then those wily republicans came back with the position that they would not approve Kerry's nomination until after Clinton testifies on the Benghazi matter. Was actually a pretty clever move on the part of those GOP bastards.

But now that Hillary been diagnosed with blood clots (and whatever the pending treatment treatment for is) the Republican maneuver of delaying the Kerry appointment is no longer viable....unless they want to look like blood sucking demons.

Think it is pretty safe to say at this point there is no way in hell SoS Clinton will be testifying before she leaves the office. If she is genuinely ill, hope she recovers soon. And if this was just a political counterplay by Hillary and the Dems it was strategically well done.
 
Cole said:
Blood clot in her brain??? Curious what your source was for that detail....??
Click to expand...

She has had it as far as politics are concerned..it is like a Wolf pack..if you can't keep up..you get eaten..
 
Cole said:
But then those wily republicans came back with the position that they would not approve Kerry's nomination until after Clinton testifies on the Benghazi matter. Was actually a pretty clever move on the part of those GOP bastards.
Click to expand...

A sensible position for the GOP. (BTW, the illegitimate ones are on the other side of the aisle; Republicans tend to have married parents.)
 
Cole said:
No idea whether Clinton has an issue with a blood clot or not. If she does, i wish her the best.

But viewing this from a strictly political tactics standpoint it does make for an interesting plot. She initially missed her scheduled testimony due to a concussion after passing out (details are sketchy). But her staff provided assurances that she would still testify.

Then Kerry was nominated as her replacement.

But then those wily republicans came back with the position that they would not approve Kerry's nomination until after Clinton testifies on the Benghazi matter. Was actually a pretty clever move on the part of those GOP bastards.

But now that Hillary been diagnosed with blood clots (and whatever the pending treatment treatment for is) the Republican maneuver of delaying the Kerry appointment is no longer viable....unless they want to look like blood sucking demons.

Think it is pretty safe to say at this point there is no way in hell SoS Clinton will be testifying before she leaves the office. If she is genuinely ill, hope she recovers soon. And if this was just a political counterplay by Hillary and the Dems it was strategically well done.
Click to expand...

It would appear she is genuinely ill.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was treated with blood thinners on Monday at a New York hospital to help dissolve a blood clot in her head and doctors were confident she would make a full recovery.

Clinton was admitted to New York Presbyterian Hospital on Sunday due to the clot that was discovered during a follow-up exam related to a concussion she suffered this month, her spokesman, Philippe Reines, said.

The clot was located in the vein between the brain and and the skull behind Clinton's right ear and did not result in any stroke or neurological damage, her doctors said in a statement.
Click to expand...

A clot in one's head is a serious matter and this would be consistent with the fall she sustained. Speculation should now be put to rest.
 
Diogenes said:
You do realize, I hope, that Benghazi is a city in the country of Libya while Algeria is another country altogether. Agreed that your scenario would be crazy, but what makes this administration scary is the fact that your scenario is plausible.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I take it you didn't get my reference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom