Opinion. How exactly was she "crappy"? Former US Senator and Secretary of State are higher qualifications that governors Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George Bush 43 who never held a national office. She has discussed what happened in Benghazi, did you forget that? This spin is laughable. How else could one interpret a politically-motivated attempt to undue two elections and impeach a President over the Whitewater investigation? Three years and $60 million spent in an bizarre and difficult to understand effort that ended up with both Clintons uncharged with any crime. Having failed that, the same politically-motivated special prosecutor switched gears to prosecute the President over the Monica Lewinsky incident, spending another $70 million to impeach the President. The Republican Congress acquitted him and did not even censure him. The GOP attempted to blame the affair on Hillary in 2008 but discovered that the public sympathized with Mrs. Clinton. Apparently they plan to try this tactic again for 2016. They have earned the moniker of "The Party of No Clue". It's called consensual sex between two consenting adults over the age of 21. Clinton was never charged with harassment, nor was he accused of such by Lewinsky. Examples? All I perceive is that the Republicans are scared to death of a Hillary candidacy and are slinging mud blindly.
Only dumbasses would Vote for a previous senator and Secretary of State that couldn't even manage those positions. That'd be worse than the fumbasses that voted for the community organizer a second time.
Yes, it's my opinion. Crappy is subjective. I think she spent most of her time on an airplane doing absolutely not much. Higher job office doesn't = qualified. She is completely unrelatable. She doesn't get it. She isn't persuasive and she's barely likable. Gawd, the peanut farmer was a dolt but he was somewhat likable. But anyway, we aren't talking about those men, we are talking about Hillary. She can't discuss what she doesn't know and her being left out of things clearly pissed her off. She testified....is that what it was? Here's what she is saying today...."she told Sawyer that she takes responsibility for what happened there, she made it clear that it was State Department personnel who underestimated the situation in Benghazi. "I take responsibility, but I was not making security decisions," she said." She's a candidate in the Obama mold....plausible deniability. ""What difference, at this point, does it make?", she said. Really....she said that....unbelievable. Disgusting. IMO. My comment had nothing to do with any of that but rather her character. That is, her willingness to blindly blame a political enemy for something with no proof whatsoever and then never admitting it. He DID have sex with Monica. He DID lie about it....to her and to America. She blamed the right wing. She never owned that. He's been accused more often than the town drunk gets accused of being under the influence. He was in the supreme position of power and could have terminated her employment in one hot, dress-stained second. I mean come on....a 22 year old intern gets sexual advances from the POTUS and you believe it was all good? She changes her stance constantly. Almost every day there's a quote or comment and then 24 hours later she's explaining or modifying. What does she really stand for? I see no evidence of leadership or qualities of a leader I could look up to or appreciate.
US spy agencies heard Benghazi attackers using State Dept. cell phones to call terrorist leaders http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ing-state-dept-cell-phones-to-call-terrorist/ They not only had eyes in the sky they were listening to the attackers conversations in real time. Barry and Hillary either ignored them or were, and still are,too incompetent to do anything about it Add that to the fact her and bill can't manage their own finances and it proves she is unqualified to be prez.
The FBI interviewed Ali Ani al Harzi and then let him go. He was a suspect and was giving live details, via social media, of the attack as it happened. Strange....he was interviewed but not detained or made available for enhanced techniques? Some people do not want the truth to come out. John Brennan is one of them.
Yep. I can see that you don't like her. Women just don't like other women sometimes. There are a lot of people who like her just fine, however. Yes, that is exactly what it was. She's an American politician in the mold of all of the rest of them. The Clintons and Obama can barely tolerate each other. Put it in context and you can see that she was correct. Clinton: Well, first of all, Senator, I would say that once the assault happened, and once we got our people rescued and out, our most immediate concern was, number one, taking care of their injuries. As I said, I still have a DS [Diplomatic Security] agent at Walter Reed seriously injured -- getting them into Frankfurt, Ramstein to get taken care of, the FBI going over immediately to start talking to them. 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. And you know I just want to say that people have accused Ambassador Rice and the administration of misleading Americans. I can say trying to be in the middle of this and understanding what was going on, nothing could be further from the truth. Was information developing? Was the situation fluid? Would we reach conclusions later that weren’t reached initially? And I appreciate the -- [interrupted] Johnson: But, Madame Secretary, do you disagree with me that a simple phone call to those evacuees to determine what happened wouldn’t have ascertained immediately that there was no protest? That was a piece of information that could have been easily, easily obtained? Clinton: But, Senator, again— [interrupted] Johnson: Within hours, if not days? Clinton: 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— [interrupted] Johnson: I realize that’s a good excuse. Clinton: 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 -- [interrupted] Johnson: No, again, we were misled that there were supposedly protests and that something sprang out of that -- an assault sprang out of that -- and that was easily ascertained that that was not the fact, and the American people could have known that within days and they didn’t know that. Clinton: 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. Now, honestly, I will do my best to answer your questions about this, but the fact is that people were trying in real time to get to the best information. The IC has a process, I understand, going with the other committees to explain how these talking points came out. But you know, to be clear, it is, from my perspective, less important today looking backwards as to why these militants decided they did it than to find them and bring them to justice, and then maybe we’ll figure out what was going on in the meantime. Johnson: OK. Thank you, Madame Secretary. You think that Whitewater morphing into Monicagate was no proof of a political witch hunt? Get real! Context again, she was blaming the right wing for the Whitewater witch hunt, as I just noted. No, I said it was not a crime, as you had suggested. As you also noted, we are talking about Hillary. Trying to name Hillary for Bill's problems is guilt by association. A tactic that backfires. Again, I must ask for an example of this.
Come on. A major who was flying the C-17 that flew out the bodies is claiming that the CIA knew that the attackers were Al Qaeda and therefore Obama and Hillary knew. How is he supposed to know this? He's a friggin' pilot without security to know CIA intel. He wasn't interviews by any of the boards because he is out of the loop. He did not report this to authorities but rather to FOX. This is just another FOXNews attempt to spin gold out of straw.
Not just the bodies. He flew the survivors out also. A Major is not out of the loop when he's performing that job. You can bet he had the clearance and was in the need to know.
His job was to fly an airplane. He does not have intelligence clearances that allow him to know what radio chatter the CIA or the NSA was intercepting in Virginia nor did he have access to any of it. All of that is highly classified. None of the people on the ground in Libya could have known this.
