• 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

Makes ya wonder that the people who use Bush as the justification for Obama's actions are also the ones who declared Bush the worst president ever.



It's "Amerikan Liberal" logic.

Bush - bad

Obama - Good

Hillary - next good.

Anything within that context is ample "evidence" for the "stupid voter" on which they rely.

And don't write the brave sniper dodger off just yet, Americans love liars. Look at the popularity still of "I did not havesex with that woman", "You can keep your plan" and anything Hillary says.

But, Bush misleads based on false evidence, convinces the majority of Democrats to go along, and it's "Bush's Fault"

It has to be that way for them as the reality of liars and scum at the top is just too ugly for them
 
Watch the lies fly.
AKA .. bias and prejudice.
Again , IMO, all of our ambassadorial staffs should have been pulled , completely, from every war torn , lawless "nation" ..even if that number is 50 or 100 ! IMO, most, if not all Islamic nations are not ready for any degree of freedom/liberty/democracy .. and may never be .. they must be dictatorships , like it or not ..
 
Greetings, humbolt. :2wave:

Weird, isn't it? I've stopped trying to understand that dichotomy! :shock:

I have especially like the smug attitude with which the "Bush did it too!" is delivered. Why would anyone want to continue a conversation with a person who decries Bush and uses his actions as a justification for Obama's in the same breath?
 
oh, he will interrupt her
there is no doubt
gowdy will insist on hogging the air time
but your problem is he will have no ability to counter her answers
especially after he has shot his wad by publicizing his questions
he has made it certain that hillary will look good at this hearing
gowdy and the other reich wingers, not so much



So, it's a game for you then?

Her evading questions and being coy is the objective?

I thought you said she would "stand on truth"?

If so, we expect to see some straight answers, which you and I both know will never happen. Hilary Clinton is as dishonest as her "I did not have sex with that woman" sham husband, and she will evade questions with sly rhetoric as she always has.

I am glad to see you have again exposed the "truth" of the "progressive Hillary" cabal. That honesty takes a second place to strategy and that like with Obama, anything, anything will be used to win, "including you can keep your plan" and IRS hassles for Republicans.
 
Benghazi again? Bush sent thousands to their deaths in Iraq after lying and falsifying information to convince the nation to go into that war/occupation, but no one is demanding he come back be interrogated....
Republicans are so bizarre.

Indeed. And it implies that Republicans value the lives of four white males more than those of a hundred thousand mostly nonwhite, Iraqi men, women, and children.

100,000 to four. Even the Deutsche Mark didn't have an exchange rate that bad at the height of post-WWII hyperinflation!
 
oh, he will interrupt her
there is no doubt
gowdy will insist on hogging the air time
but your problem is he will have no ability to counter her answers
especially after he has shot his wad by publicizing his questions
he has made it certain that hillary will look good at this hearing
gowdy and the other reich wingers, not so much


Well really JB.....he did tell her attorney sample questions. Not that they are the questions. Plus Hillary tried to say she would only testify one time. That's not happening and now she knows it and can't get out of it ...... unless she wants to take the 5th.

Then Gowdy stated other members have questions and they aren't getting any of those samples.

More than likely Gowdy has set her up and her attorney up. Misleading them and helping them to think he is just an average attorney. Just one of the good ole boys.

Looks like they have taken the bait too.
 
Indeed. And it implies that Republicans value the lives of four white males more than those of a hundred thousand mostly nonwhite, Iraqi men, women, and children.

100,000 to four. Even the Deutsche Mark didn't have an exchange rate that bad at the height of post-WWII hyperinflation!

Not just Iraqis, we also lost 1000s of soldiers iirc.
 
Seven years and counting and its still "Bush did it too"

George W. Bush has to have been the single most powerful president in history and Obama the biggest eagle scout since nothing he has done has changed any Bush policy. Every ****ing thing that has happened in seven years is:


Bush's fault!


That's alright F&L.....they luv to bring up Bush Jr and Iraq. But do note how they don't like to talk about how BO lost Afghanistan and got our troopers being killed and some over ROEs.....BOs' ROEs.

As he said all along Iraq was not the War to fight. Afghanistan was. To prevent terrorists from having a breeding ground. Set up camps, arms and recruiting.

Now what happened.....everything he said that he would try and do in the War that BO wanted to fight, he now allowed to happen in Libya. A Country we didn't put troops on the ground or go to war with.

Its not hard to miss why most leaders thinking BO is an Amateur Politician and has no skills to be out playing where the Big Boys play.
 
oh, he will interrupt her
there is no doubt
gowdy will insist on hogging the air time
but your problem is he will have no ability to counter her answers
especially after he has shot his wad by publicizing his questions
he has made it certain that hillary will look good at this hearing
gowdy and the other reich wingers, not so much

If she is "standing on the truth" as you put it bubba, she shouldn't have to worry about being interrupted...But I see, that you have to resort to ad homs when you know you hold a losing hand in debates...Pretty lame if you ask me...:roll:

Oh, and at this point Hillary couldn't look good if she were someone else....She's toast. I only hope that the duped progressives keep her out there for the nomination...I literally could not think of anything better for a repub win than the disaster for this country that Obama has been, then putting up someone as corrupt as Hillary....Hell, You'd be better off running Sanders seriously....hahahahahahaha!
 
What matters is how she answers the questions, and I still contend that the hunt will yield little but campaign material.

Indeed....will she be able to stay composed as an old woman or just come off as cackling deceiving falsifying old woman.
 
So, it's a game for you then?
it's a game of issa's and gowdy's making: cat and mouse. in this version, hillary is the cat

Her evading questions and being coy is the objective?
gowdy is chairing the hearing
if he is unable to ask the appropriate questions to find out the truth, then y'all have elected an incompetent ... with good hair

I thought you said she would "stand on truth"?
and i expect her to
the truth has served her well in all of the inquiries thus far

If so, we expect to see some straight answers, which you and I both know will never happen.
actually, i would expect the facts to come out of a congressional hearing
but that requires congressmen to have the ability to ask questions that reveal the facts
your guys aren't up to it ... to date there are no investigative successes by issa or gowdy


Hilary Clinton is as dishonest as her "I did not have sex with that woman" sham husband, and she will evade questions with sly rhetoric as she always has.
in other words, while hillary has been prevaricating, you insist, the republican congressmen are too inept to expose her lies, despite their considerable congressional powers

I am glad to see you have again exposed the "truth" of the "progressive Hillary" cabal.
why should hillary's responses be found other than the truth? the likes of gowdy and issa have been unable to show us that she has presented anything other than truthful responses

That honesty takes a second place to strategy and that like with Obama, anything, anything will be used to win, "including you can keep your plan" and IRS hassles for Republicans.
again, there is nothing your side has been able to demonstrate that would tell us anything other than hillary has been honest in her statements
just as there is nothing which tells us the IRS was anything but forthright in its actions
and anyone who was on a plan could keep their plan, provided the insurer continued to offer said plan
i look forward to seeing what gowdy and company can accomplish on the 18th. my money, were i a betting person, would be on hillary to again win this round
not because she is so capable
but because your team is so inept
 
Well really JB.....he did tell her attorney sample questions. Not that they are the questions. Plus Hillary tried to say she would only testify one time. That's not happening and now she knows it and can't get out of it ...... unless she wants to take the 5th.

Then Gowdy stated other members have questions and they aren't getting any of those samples.

More than likely Gowdy has set her up and her attorney up. Misleading them and helping them to think he is just an average attorney. Just one of the good ole boys.

Looks like they have taken the bait too.
[emphasis added by bubba]

it would be misleading for anyone to think gowdy is an average attorney. he is not nearly so accomplished
 
or she can stand on the truth
and trey will be unable to budge her
That's possible - Mr. Issa didn't get anywhere with her except to score the political soundbite, "What difference does it make"?

I suspect she will not lose her emotions so easily this time around.

To play the Devil's advocate: since none of us knows the truth, she may even stand on an 'untruth' and be un-budgeable.

Either way, this will be an interesting battle between two Ivy League trained skilled prosecutors.

I personally believe her server was set-up to shield her politically, just as the Clintons took all the personal computers with them when leaving the White House after Bubba's tenure - I seem to recall it was around a dozen, in number.
 
Indeed....will she be able to stay composed as an old woman or just come off as cackling deceiving falsifying old woman.

It is all spin now is my point. If you can resolve yourself to the realization that nothing new will be learned form this "testimony" then the only thing left is how politics uses this, at our expense. What is growing more tiresome is this incessant method of going after Clinton using Benghazi as a method for political gain over actually honoring those lost over this fiasco.

The bottom line is I no longer buy that Republicans in Congress give a **** about J. Christopher Stevens. Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith or Glen Doherty. I consider using this event to politically harm Clinton in the 2016 campaign season as nothing more than Republicans spitting on the very graves that they claim Clinton did with "what difference, at this point, does it make!?"

Now I have a good and lengthy history myself of being very critical of Hillary Clinton on her handling Benghazi, her private email server, and dozens of other events from her past. I am no supporter of hers at all, but this is getting ridiculous. It comes off as obsessive clinging to potential political gain for Republicans that are all in on this hunt.

The only caveat to this is if something new is learned, but I do not see it from these questions to date. I see it as political grandstanding by everyone that will be there who all do not seem to honestly care about what happened.
 
Which "truth" would that be?
the pronouncements she has made thus far. the ones the other side has been unable to shake

That she didn't have her own private server but did?
to my knowledge, hillary never stated anything other than she had her own private server. prove that you are not making **** up by showing us that she has stated otherwise

That she turned every email over, except a few hundred thousand that were erased?
show us anything other than what hillary has presented, that all official correspondence was turned over to the state department for its archives and the balance, her personal emails, were deleted from that personally owned server

The truth that she ran an investment house that NEVER lost one cent on an invetsment?
what investment house has hillary ever run?
i know your side tends to seek out the inept ones, but isn't it a positive characteristic for one to make profitable rather than unprofitable investment decisions

Or the "truth" that Monica Lewiski was a slut/whore/bitch out to ruin her and her husband's life.
so, you want us to believe that monica was forced to engage in sexual behavior with bill clinton, that she did not willingly have sexual relations with a married man of her own volition
extra credit if you are able to identify the woman who was wronged by those extra-marital sexual encounters


Or the "truth" of "what difference does it make"
you tell us then, 'what difference did it make?'

This is a woman of such profound "truth" she covered for a serial sex addict,
share with us how hillary 'covered' any illicit sex act

... hid files from prosecutors only to "find" them after the fact,
and your proof that hillary was the one behind the secreting of said files, please offer it so we can learn about it, too

and "heroically" dodged sniper fire in Bosnia.
did she not encounter any gunfire while she was in bosnia?

That truth?
yep
the truth you nor the republicans in congress are able to show to be anything but fact

The only thing this bag of dead gray matter considers "truth" is her own propaganda.
something you continue to insist while the facts tell us otherwise
 
Come on MMC, "stupid" is the last resort when when you have run out of adjectives.

Their "chosen one", she of the progressive coronation, from "first black president" to "fist woman president", is being given a hard time, and because she's the closest America has to royalty, they cry fowl.

It's become very humorous, this fight for a woman of no substance as president because she is a woman. Yesterday, the People of Prince Edward Isand re-elected a gay premier. We in BC re-elected our third woman premier, one of five across the province, one of them a lesbian. And we had a woman prime minister in the late 80's.

So this grand scheme of AA for Hillary is amusing in the extreme, a woman candidate because she is a woman following a disaster of a president who was president because he is black. They just don't get that symbolism is not what matters, but sound government from any leader regardless of skin color.

And the real prize? She's tainted, crooked, and way past her best before date, but she could likely be elected anyway, felonies notwithstanding.

Greetings, F & L. :2wave:

Well, there have been at least seven women Presidents in Latin America in the past, and most of them were elected by riding on a man's coat-tails, either their husbands or a mentor they served under. The majority are left wing, so Hillary will not be a groundbreaker in any sense of the word. Odd that most of the illegals in our country come from Latin America, though, so it appears their lives did not get better or they wouldn't be leaving their home countries, IMO. Time will tell how things go in the US if Hillary is elected - SOS, just under a female POTUS, or worse because of all the problems she or any other new POTUS will inherit from BHO? Why anybody would want the damn job is a mystery to me, because power carries responsibility with it, and the entire world seems to be unraveling at present!
 
It is all spin now is my point. If you can resolve yourself to the realization that nothing new will be learned form this "testimony" then the only thing left is how politics uses this, at our expense. What is growing more tiresome is this incessant method of going after Clinton using Benghazi as a method for political gain over actually honoring those lost over this fiasco.

The bottom line is I no longer buy that Republicans in Congress give a **** about J. Christopher Stevens. Tyrone Woods, Sean Smith or Glen Doherty. I consider using this event to politically harm Clinton in the 2016 campaign season as nothing more than Republicans spitting on the very graves that they claim Clinton did with "what difference, at this point, does it make!?"

Now I have a good and lengthy history myself of being very critical of Hillary Clinton on her handling Benghazi, her private email server, and dozens of other events from her past. I am no supporter of hers at all, but this is getting ridiculous. It comes off as obsessive clinging to potential political gain for Republicans that are all in on this hunt.

The only caveat to this is if something new is learned, but I do not see it from these questions to date. I see it as political grandstanding by everyone that will be there who all do not seem to honestly care about what happened.
Great post!

Whatever 'truths' or 'untruths' are out there, they are being eclipsed by the political grandstanding & witch-hunting taking place - if Ms. Clinton wasn't running for office these hearings would never occur, and these incidents would be a small footnote in history, at best. (well to clarify, hearings would not involve Ms. Clinton, but would possibly occur centering on the other front-runner Dem candidate(s) as perceived by the GOP controlled house).

This is an example of a co-opted out-of-control government, and resultant of the two-party system we are stuck with (sadly).

The GOP are playing a dangerous political game too, running the line between scoring political points and alienating due to political grand-standing - all focused on independent and sway voters. (the bases are simply being solidified due to the polarizing nature of the hearings)

But you brought-up the most poignant aspect of all this, and I commend you: The actual victims - the deceased & their families - are being desecrated in the name of politics, to the point one of the families requested their loved one's name be no longer used by one of the GOP candidates in his political attacks in the 2012 election cycle. (I don't recall which individual's family)
 
[emphasis added by bubba]

it would be misleading for anyone to think gowdy is an average attorney. he is not nearly so accomplished

Well, he does know the law and can force Hillary to take a deposition and he can subpoena her to go after what he needs. Records, server, and her very own ass. He just needs to learn how to be the Master of the Mic.

Letting Hillary know.....there are no good hands under her ALL-State!
 
WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton has agreed to testify on Capitol Hill later this month about the attacks in Benghazi, Libya, and about her email practices. Her lawyer David Kendall wrote to lawmakers Monday telling them she would agree to the request from a special panel investigating the September 2012 attacks that killed four Americans.

4e634d86c007a710730f6a7067002947.jpg


Hillary Clinton agrees to testify on Benghazi, emails this month | Chicago

I didnt know this was a negotiation. They should probably just subpoena her. There is no way this can go without Republicans being made to look bad by the media. Now that shes running for office, everything is going to be even worse. For all we know its part of her strategy. Maybe shell cry.
 
I have especially like the smug attitude with which the "Bush did it too!" is delivered. Why would anyone want to continue a conversation with a person who decries Bush and uses his actions as a justification for Obama's in the same breath?

I was taken aback this morning after reading the headline "Hillary agrees to testify." It sounded like she was in charge of the investigation and had a decision to make - and that surprised me. What would have happened if she had said no? I'm not being snarky; I honestly don't know how these things work. :shock:
 
Greetings, F & L. :2wave:

Well, there have been at least seven women Presidents in Latin America in the past, and most of them were elected by riding on a man's coat-tails, either their husbands or a mentor they served under. The majority are left wing, so Hillary will not be a groundbreaker in any sense of the word. Odd that most of the illegals in our country come from Latin America, though, so it appears their lives did not get better or they wouldn't be leaving their home countries, IMO. Time will tell how things go in the US if Hillary is elected - SOS, just under a female POTUS, or worse because of all the problems she or any other new POTUS will inherit from BHO?
Why anybody would want the damn job is a mystery to me, because power carries responsibility with it,
my first - and only - postulate normally, (s)he who aspires to a position of authority, does not deserve it, applies in this matter
so many seek the power and authority yet have no idea what they want to do with it
this is how i view hillary. she wants to be president, but is unable to articulate what she would do with the power of the executive once she acquired it
and in contrast, it is why i support Elizabeth Warren; she is the reluctant leader. she has a sense of purpose, and that is why she should be the democratic contender for the white house

and the entire world seems to be unraveling at present!
the world is always unraveling somewhere, while being knitted together in other places
i see this as a wonderful era ... especially when compared to the times of WWI, WWII and the (un)civil war. those who lived in those times would likely marvel that we would so disparage the circumstances of the world today by comparison to their own experiences
 
it's a game of issa's and gowdy's making: cat and mouse. in this version, hillary is the cat


gowdy is chairing the hearing
if he is unable to ask the appropriate questions to find out the truth, then y'all have elected an incompetent ... with good hair


and i expect her to
the truth has served her well in all of the inquiries thus far


actually, i would expect the facts to come out of a congressional hearing
but that requires congressmen to have the ability to ask questions that reveal the facts
your guys aren't up to it ... to date there are no investigative successes by issa or gowdy



in other words, while hillary has been prevaricating, you insist, the republican congressmen are too inept to expose her lies, despite their considerable congressional powers


why should hillary's responses be found other than the truth? the likes of gowdy and issa have been unable to show us that she has presented anything other than truthful responses


again, there is nothing your side has been able to demonstrate that would tell us anything other than hillary has been honest in her statements
just as there is nothing which tells us the IRS was anything but forthright in its actions
and anyone who was on a plan could keep their plan, provided the insurer continued to offer said plan
i look forward to seeing what gowdy and company can accomplish on the 18th. my money, were i a betting person, would be on hillary to again win this round
not because she is so capable
but because your team is so inept



no, no, no, no...

You do not get off that easy. You have been championing Mrs. Clinton as too smart to get caught by the "stupid" Gowdie. You have been assassinating the character of those who want to know what really happened, questioning their motives without evidence, based purely on your perceived bias. You have attacked the integrity of the chairman....you cannot now rise from that gutter and claim a moral high ground, not with a Clinton involved.

Not a Clinton who was so brave in the face of 'deadly sniper fire', uh uh.
 
That's when Gowdy needs to interrupt her and help her to stay focused. Even if it means talking to her like she is a child and belittling her.

Nope. The last thing she needs is sympathy points.
 
Well, he does know the law and can force Hillary to take a deposition and he can subpoena her to go after what he needs. Records, server, and her very own ass. He just needs to learn how to be the Master of the Mic.

Letting Hillary know.....there are no good hands under her ALL-State!

no. he cannot make her give a deposition
that is what he sought. a private hearing with a transcription
and hillary insisted that any such activity be conducted in the public's view
she has already nailed his ass to the wall on that one
 
Back
Top Bottom