Hillary: "I take responsibility"

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Naw. I just want to go on record pointing out that Hillary said, long ago, that she absolutely will not continue as SOS Obama's second term (it will probably be Kerry, I'd guess).

Just want to mention it before the RWNJ fact-denying Obama Derangement Syndrome folks go crazy in a couple of months about how she was "forced out" or "quit in a huff" or "Bill is gonna get Obama" or something

You realize that her chances of winning the presidency are greater if Obama loses, right? Especially now that she has justification to leave without being attached to this blossoming scandal.

Your choice of SOS for Secretary of State is quite appropriate, and, if intended, witty!

[SOREHOOF]

It's not fantasy Riot! They actually said it. Shamelessly blamed a youtube vid that nobody was aware of for a commando assault on our Embassy. And they knew it the whole time but lied anyway.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You realize that her chances of winning the presidency are greater if Obama loses, right? Especially now that she has justification to leave without being attached to this blossoming scandal.

Your choice of SOS for Secretary of State is quite appropriate, and, if intended, witty!

First: the RWNJ contention that this is some political thing between Hillary and Obama is simply ... ridiculous. Dear god. Does anybody ever effing get things first hand anymore, or do they just read third-hand blogs from third-rate writers?

No, I disagree with your assumption that the public alters parties automatically.

Hilary's chances of winning the Presidency are extremely good following Obama, because the economics are going to be so solid, and the GOP is going to continue into oblivion, with nobody viable (including Jeb) as a presidential candidate.

That, plus, all the people (like me) that would never have voted for Hillary in a million years in 2008, now are looking at a quite successful, proven, accomplished Secretary of State. Now every knows she could be president and handle it well. These four years have only greatly enhanced her chances across all political spectrums.

I think the GOP is done for quite some time as President, and I think they stand a good chance of losing the House, too.

You can laugh at Kerry all you want, but I don't know why you would. He would make an outstanding SOS, he's extremely knowlegable, has tons of foreign experience - he was next on the list after Hilary.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

It's not fantasy Riot! They actually said it. Shamelessly blamed a youtube vid that nobody was aware of for a commando assault on our Embassy. And they knew it the whole time but lied anyway.

Sigh ... have you simply not read the thread? It's effing fantasy. Yes, I know what Susan Rice said (I watched it as it happened), but you cannot deny that president didn't come out the next day (the week before Rice) and say it was terrorists, or that he said it was terrorists on Letterman. Or on The View.

Hello! These things exist, and there is video to prove it.

I posted the video. Watch it. The president's press statement the day after it happened is out there, too. Continuing to ignore those things actually exist is simply beyond crazy. Yes. It's fantasy. And it's a fantasy that only exists out there in Obama-Derangement land, populated by birthers, "He's a commie Muslim", and other wing nuts.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You realize that her chances of winning the presidency are greater if Obama loses, right? Especially now that she has justification to leave without being attached to this blossoming scandal.

Your choice of SOS for Secretary of State is quite appropriate, and, if intended, witty!

Exactly why do you think hillary would be better off if obama lost? If obama loses, he would conceivably run in 16. Then there isunseating a sitting president, which as romney is showing, isnt easy to do. Reagan, bush, clinton, bush. Last four before obama, and three of the four served 2 terms,
If obama wins, hillary would be the top demo dog four years from now.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

If obama wins, hillary would be the top demo dog four years from now.

Agreed. The Dem nomination in 2016 is hers for the asking. Obama would support her and campaign for her.

Who do the Republicans have?

Rubio?
Bush?
Christie?
Portman?
Condi?

The GOP brand is virtually destroyed right now. That's why so many Republicans are steering clear of the current incarnation of the GOP.

[Riot]

Okay, this is an example what drives me effing nuts about the lies and untruths and deliberately bad "USA journalism" that is tolerated in our political discourse nowadays (and yeah, that includes Romney's brazen lying, too)

You want objective journalism? You can't hardly get it any more in America. Try guardian.uk or aljazeera english

Wall Street Journal blasts Clinton for silence on Libya attack - that she discussed in WSJ interview

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial attack on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Monday night regarding her actions in relation to a bloody Sept. 11 assault on the U.S. consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

There's a back story.

Michael Calderone reports that the Journal waited until Monday night before it ran excerpts from its Oct. 10 interview with Clinton in which she said she accepted responsibility for security matters at the U.S. consulate. The remarks in the interview are similar to remarks she made Monday in Lima, Peru.

[hoovesupsideyourhead]

Originally Posted by Riot

Agreed. The Dem nomination in 2016 is hers for the asking. Obama would support her and campaign for her.

Who do the Republicans have?

Rubio?
Bush?
Christie?
Portman?
Condi?

The GOP brand is virtually destroyed right now. That's why so many Republicans are steering clear of the current incarnation of the GOP.

WOW..you really are crazy.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

WOW..you really are crazy.

Don't rile her up, Hooves....It's been a pleasant couple of days without her

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Sigh ... have you simply not read the thread? It's effing fantasy. Yes, I know what Susan Rice said (I watched it as it happened), but you cannot deny that president didn't come out the next day (the week before Rice) and say it was terrorists, or that he said it was terrorists on Letterman. Or on The View.

Hello! These things exist, and there is video to prove it.

I posted the video. Watch it. The president's press statement the day after it happened is out there, too. Continuing to ignore those things actually exist is simply beyond crazy. Yes. It's fantasy. And it's a fantasy that only exists out there in Obama-Derangement land, populated by birthers, "He's a commie Muslim", and other wing nuts.

What are you smoking? I'm going to make a statement and you tell me if my statement is truthful. Here is my statement: "There was a protest over a video and the protest got out of hand and the protesters end up killing our ambassador. We will not tolerate an 'act of terror' like this."

Is that a true statement? Is that an accurate portrayal of what happened in Libya? The fact that I used the word "terror" in there is meaningless. I still mischaracterized the whole incident and that is exactly what Obama did. He made statements almost identical to my statement.

You can try to play with semantics and say that Obama did use the word "terror" in the Rose Garden. He did use the word "terrorist" on Letterman. Who cares? He still totally lied about what happened. By the time he came on Letterman, he knew exactly what happened yet he was still talking about the video. When Letterman asked him about what happened in Libya, Obama said, "Here is what happened. There was a video released......"

[dellinger63]

Who takes responsiblity for Hillary?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by hoovesupsideyourhead

WOW..you really are crazy.

Thanks for another of your deep political analyses. Do tell your assessment of the GOP candidate strength for 2016. Maybe Santorum, Bachmann and Cain will run again Do you still think Sarah Palin worthy of being POTUS?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by dellinger63

Who takes responsiblity for Hillary?

Damn ... seems some of you guys - including Romney - really need to access some reliable information sources (outside of the odd interpretations and reality-ignoring RWNJ echo chamber), before you go all in on ... falsehoods, like you have on the Libyan consulate attack.

How Mitt Romney’s Latest Attack On Libya Is Falling Apart

By Judd Legum on Oct 20, 2012 at 12:45 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...falling-apart/

Fox Admits Libya Attack May Have Been Caused By Anti-Muslim Video

By Hayes Brown on Oct 20, 2012 at 9:59 am

The right-wing is beginning to reverse itself on insisting that a anti-Muslim YouTube video had nothing to do with the attack on a U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya. Republicans and Fox News have scorned the Obama administration for weeks for initial statements that the assault in Benghazi, that took the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, was an outgrowth of a protest sparked by this video.

Fox’s Geraldo Rivera went against that narrative on Friday. After Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy once again mocked the notion that the video was an impetus for the attack, Rivera instead presented the idea that it was in fact both a reaction to the video and a terrorist attack.

The hosts quickly attempted to pull Rivera back on-message after he completed explaining his theory, but couldn’t persuade him to drop it completely.

http://thinkprogress.org/security/20...used-by-video/

[GenuineRisk]

To Republicans, see, 3,000 dead Americans in an attack on our shore under a GOP President was just one of those things that no one could have foreseen ("Bin Laden Determined To Attack In US" memo in August being a non-issue of course). And 4,000 dead Americans and billions and billions of dollars wasted in Iraq (money we borrowed) is just one of those things- how could a GOP President possibly know there were no weapons of mass destruction? How could we possibly expect him to do due diligence and not just go with what he wished was true?

But an attack on our embassy under a Democratic President? Well, clearly that is the personal fault of the Democratic President, see! Because shut up, that's why.

The difference being, in the weeks after 9/11, when the GOP Administration was running around trying to figure out what happened, you didn't hear Democratic members of Congress saying anything resembling the crap the GOP is now spouting. Because pulling together as a nation is only for when there is a Republican in office.

Here's what Reagan and Bush had to say in 1980, after the failed rescue attempt for the hostages in Iran:

Reagan: "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."

HW Bush: "I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision.”

What a difference 30 years makes for the GOP. Once, they understood it was American first, Republican second. Not anymore.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

To Republicans, see, 3,000 dead Americans in an attack on our shore under a GOP President was just one of those things that no one could have foreseen ("Bin Laden Determined To Attack In US" memo in August being a non-issue of course). And 4,000 dead Americans and billions and billions of dollars wasted in Iraq (money we borrowed) is just one of those things- how could a GOP President possibly know there were no weapons of mass destruction? How could we possibly expect him to do due diligence and not just go with what he wished was true?

But an attack on our embassy under a Democratic President? Well, clearly that is the personal fault of the Democratic President, see! Because shut up, that's why.

The difference being, in the weeks after 9/11, when the GOP Administration was running around trying to figure out what happened, you didn't hear Democratic members of Congress saying anything resembling the crap the GOP is now spouting. Because pulling together as a nation is only for when there is a Republican in office.

Here's what Reagan and Bush had to say in 1980, after the failed rescue attempt for the hostages in Iran:

Reagan: "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."

HW Bush: "I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision.”

What a difference 30 years makes for the GOP. Once, they understood it was American first, Republican second. Not anymore.

Nobody said the attack was Obama's fault. What people are saying is that the State Deptartment did a horrible job in protecting the embassy. Granted even if they had armed guards, the attack may have still been successful. But you at least want to give your people a chance. Having unarmed guards is astounding. That is just complete incompetence.

The other thing that people are complaining about is Obama's lack of truthfulness after the fact.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by Riot

Damn ... seems some of you guys - including Romney - really need to access some reliable information sources (outside of the odd interpretations and reality-ignoring RWNJ echo chamber), before you go all in on ... falsehoods, like you have on the Libyan consulate attack.

The right-wing is beginning to reverse itself? Geraldo has been a democrat his entire life. He's not a right-winger.

[dellinger63]

The fact a consulate was guarded by guards, hired by a British Company, armed with flashlights and batons is all anyone needs to know.

Job outsourcing at its best.

When Hillary said she was taking responsiblity who knew it was for a job well done.

Couple more bumps in the road to go.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

The right-wing is beginning to reverse itself? Geraldo has been a democrat his entire life. He's not a right-winger.

Really? I've always assumed he was a republican..At best he's a rightie who uses his heritage to pretend he's a Democrat to get ratings.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...erage-not-so-s

How many elite soldiers have died during "peacetime" under Obama, Genuine Chump?

24 minimum by my count. The Braggart in Chief had to disclose who killed bin Laden to toot his own horn.

You can't have it both ways, scum hypocrites. You accept death if it fits your agenda.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

To Republicans, see, 3,000 dead Americans in an attack on our shore under a GOP President was just one of those things that no one could have foreseen ("Bin Laden Determined To Attack In US" memo in August being a non-issue of course). And 4,000 dead Americans and billions and billions of dollars wasted in Iraq (money we borrowed) is just one of those things- how could a GOP President possibly know there were no weapons of mass destruction? How could we possibly expect him to do due diligence and not just go with what he wished was true?

But an attack on our embassy under a Democratic President? Well, clearly that is the personal fault of the Democratic President, see! Because shut up, that's why.

The difference being, in the weeks after 9/11, when the GOP Administration was running around trying to figure out what happened, you didn't hear Democratic members of Congress saying anything resembling the crap the GOP is now spouting. Because pulling together as a nation is only for when there is a Republican in office.

Here's what Reagan and Bush had to say in 1980, after the failed rescue attempt for the hostages in Iran:

Reagan: "This is the time for us as a nation and a people to stand united."

HW Bush: "I unequivocally support the president of the United States — no ifs, ands or buts — and it certainly is not a time to try to go one-up politically. He made a difficult, courageous decision.”

What a difference 30 years makes for the GOP. Once, they understood it was American first, Republican second. Not anymore.