• 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 Clinton agrees to testify on Benghazi, emails this month

"Hillary Clinton agrees to testify on Benghazi, emails this month"

I assume she did not agree to tell the truth. Who cares what she says? Judge politicians not by what they say but by what they do.
 
those above cites are what you offer in response to my request that you provide a cite showing us hillary stated what you attributed to her here [the emphasis below is added by me]



now, i have reviewed what you have offered in reply
and you have NOTHING showing hillary said what you attributed to her
i find that dishonest

to the other forum members, PLEASE watch the video cite [below] he provided for the five minutes between 34:30 and 39:30 and you will see that hillary argues exactly the opposite of what us conservative has falsely portrayed her to have stated

in those five minutes you will hear that the security budget at state was cut by 10% - before the negative fiscal impact of sequestration across the board
in that five minutes you will hear hillary express her desire to be able to reallocate state budgets to better secure the state department employees, an action the then democratic lead senate approved but an action the republican lead house denied

us conservative, this is my final snipe hunt in pursuit of a fact you might have posted. it is now obvious your post was intentionally misrepresentative of what was actually said. given your inability to post verifiable material, i can no longer view your posts as containing anything of value

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQjnPeFRTLE
[34:30 - 39:30]

Bubba, here you go.
Benghazi a consequence of misplaced priorities, not lack of funding | The Daily Caller
Are Budget Cuts to Blame for Benghazi Attack, as Biden Suggested? - The Daily Beast
 
See above.



Yeah, all the Fact Checkers had it down to.....then all the Political Pundits. It was always a deflection.....as they could validate a few people in State requesting for more Security and at different times.

Which again the First investigation did conclude they missed clear and obvious warnings.

Yet even back then.....with Mullens. He didn't find out about the Libyans giving State Dept 3 days advanced warning to not conduct business in Benghazi on the Anniversary of 911.

What no one has yet discovered. Was......what State People had talked to who was Head of Security for Libya and Benghazi. They do know someone talked with him, as the interim president of Libya would come out later and tell the BBC that.
 
Yeah, all the Fact Checkers had it down to.....then all the Political Pundits. It was always a deflection.....as they could validate a few people in State requesting for more Security and at different times.

Which again the First investigation did conclude they missed clear and obvious warnings.

Yet even back then.....with Mullens. He didn't find out about the Libyans giving State Dept 3 days advanced warning to not conduct business in Benghazi on the Anniversary of 911.

What no one has yet discovered. Was......what State People had talked to who was Head of Security for Libya and Benghazi. They do know someone talked with him, as the interim president of Libya would come out later and tell the BBC that.

What the democrat party does, is fling a bunch of poo and see's what sticks.
Frankly, the dems are good at trying to defend their myriad of failures-so blaming it on lack of funding was likely reflexive.

Im not hearing lefties using that defense anymore, in fact it would be unwise to do so.
 


nowhere did i see any evidence/cites confirming your presentation
let's review what you posted ... for which i requested cites to confirm your presentation:
The problem with your argument is that Hillary testified under oath that funding (cut or otherwise) in no way impacted decisions made about the embassy or impaired defense of the facility.

What else you got?
it appears you are now conceding that you misrepresented what hillary stated during sworn testimony
 
What the democrat party does, is fling a bunch of poo and see's what sticks.
Frankly, the dems are good at trying to defend their myriad of failures-so blaming it on lack of funding was likely reflexive.

Im not hearing lefties using that defense anymore, in fact it would be unwise to do so.


Yeah the Press dropped it to.....especially once Congress increased the appropriations bill and BO signed off.
 
nowhere did i see any evidence/cites confirming your presentation
let's review what you posted ... for which i requested cites to confirm your presentation:

it appears you are now conceding that you misrepresented what hillary stated during sworn testimony

I did indeed, I intended to say her department-that she headed and was responsible for-gave sworn testimony that budget concerns in no way impacted either the security or the response to the Benghazi disaster.

Are you now conceding that the budget was a non factor?
 
What the democrat party does, is fling a bunch of poo and see's what sticks.
Frankly, the dems are good at trying to defend their myriad of failures-so blaming it on lack of funding was likely reflexive.

Im not hearing lefties using that defense anymore, in fact it would be unwise to do so.

Details. Details. Details.

None of which matter in politics. Richard Nixon almost got away with Watergate, why? People were confused by the details, there was no "smoking gun" vagueness replaced facts, reduced to "what did the president know, and when did he learn it."

We in the media could see plainly he was guilty, but people had stopped reading much, TV was the staple and they refused to cover it much until John Dean and the tapes, probably because Dean had the hottest wife sitting behind him.

Today the voter is by Democrat definition, "stupid". They determine opinions on the slightest of slant that happens to fall into their pre-conceived idea structure, as it is unlikely they even have a world view.

As long as the Clintons can keep the details down to the simplest [a blow job as opposed to obstruction of justice] they will have the hearts of the weak and stupid, the sheep who really want a from of monarchy they can worship.

The details of Hillary's scandals will not even amount to much. She will have to be defeated the old fashioned way, on policy and competence, her weakest areas.
 
Details. Details. Details.

None of which matter in politics. Richard Nixon almost got away with Watergate, why? People were confused by the details, there was no "smoking gun" vagueness replaced facts, reduced to "what did the president know, and when did he learn it."

We in the media could see plainly he was guilty, but people had stopped reading much, TV was the staple and they refused to cover it much until John Dean and the tapes, probably because Dean had the hottest wife sitting behind him.

Today the voter is by Democrat definition, "stupid". They determine opinions on the slightest of slant that happens to fall into their pre-conceived idea structure, as it is unlikely they even have a world view.

As long as the Clintons can keep the details down to the simplest [a blow job as opposed to obstruction of justice] they will have the hearts of the weak and stupid, the sheep who really want a from of monarchy they can worship.

The details of Hillary's scandals will not even amount to much. She will have to be defeated the old fashioned way, on policy and competence, her weakest areas.

Yes, in fact I believe that is one reason the dems stall, obstruct, delay, etc-its to create a fog of uncertainty that they are betting will end up in their favor.
If the gruberites still buy that the Bill Clinton Monica thing was about a bj, they will droolingly nod at this as well.
 
Back
Top Bottom