The Political Future of Hillary Clinton

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
I think it hangs in the balance at the moment over Libya. For now, she seems to be content with riding this out and seeing what happens, because Obama still has fairly good odds of getting reelected. A Senate hearing on Benghazi won't happen until after the elections, and if Obama can win, she may be thinking she can escape this. Rumor has it, she requested more security at Benghazi and her request was denied. So her ass is covered, if it comes down to that.

However, should the Libyan debacle cause a major shift in Obama's poll numbers, and it looks as if he will certainly lose the election, Hillary might decide it's best for her political future to jump ship now, and start singing like a canary in the wake of her resignation. This gives her distance from Obama's administration, which she won't have the opportunity to gain if she sticks it out and he loses. I think her and Bill have already figured her 'best shot' for 2016 is if Obama wins reelection, because if Romney wins, he will turn the economy around and it will be difficult to beat his reelection bid in '16. But, if the dynamic is changed by this, and it appears Obama isn't going to win... her next best option would be to abandon his administration while she still can, so that she doesn't carry that baggage.

That's my take on it, she's in a very precarious position at the moment, and this could turn really ugly for Obama fast.
 
You are an idiot Dixie. There is nothing to distance herself from. The requests for additional funding were rejected by Congress. It is republicans who need to answer for the Ambassador's death. None of your whitewash bullshit will change that fact.
 
Rune said:
You are an idiot Dixie. There is nothing to distance herself from. The requests for additional funding were rejected by Congress. It is republicans who need to answer for the Ambassador's death. None of your whitewash bullshit will change that fact.
Click to expand...

You are a partisan hack. Congressional vote on funding had absolutely nothing to do with this. You are a hack
 
But are the “good ole boys” of the Grand Ole Party forgetting something incredibly important? That these same harsh critics on the Hill blocked a bill that would have provided additional security for those serving at that demolished embassy in Benghazi, where our diplomats and security personnel lost their lives? Even though the State Department has since said that “no reasonably security presence” could have stemmed off the attack in Libya, the GOP continue their attack on Obama and his administration for the killings.
The right-wing spin lost a critical part of its steam when CNN’s Soledad O’Brien, host of Starting Points, fired back at Rep. Jason Chaffetz on Wednesday morning, as he was spewing the same hypocritical talking points. Incidentally, Chaffetz is also a surrogate for the Romney campaign and is leading the charge for his camp.
O’Brien reminded the Republican representative for Utah’s third district that he had joined fellow House Republicans in voting to cut the budget for embassy security in 2011 and 2012. When asked outright if he had voted to cut security funds for the embassy, Chaffetz answered, “Absolutely. Look, we have to make choices in this country.”

http://www.allvoices.com/contribute...ty-then-blames-obama-for-killings-in-benghazi
 
No, there was no vote to cut embassy security in Benghazi, that is just a flat out liberal LIE.

There was also no request made by the Secretary of State to Congress for funding... that is a LIE. Not only is it a LIE, it is completely contradictory to how government operates. The SoS doesn't go to Congress and request ANY DAMN THING!

Paul Ryan did propose a budget that would have cut funding to the military, which MAY have included cuts to security in Benghazi, but his proposal was never passed, so it is academic. You can't blame cuts that were proposed but never happened, on the FAILURES of this administration to protect our people. Even IF the Ryan budget had passed and cuts to the military funding were made, the President still has the authority to decide where security is needed most, and it could have been provided by reducing funding for security elsewhere. BUT AGAIN... the budget didn't pass, so it doesn't matter.
 
Dixie said:
No, there was no vote to cut embassy security in Benghazi, that is just a flat out liberal LIE.

There was also no request made by the Secretary of State to Congress for funding... that is a LIE. Not only is it a LIE, it is completely contradictory to how government operates. The SoS doesn't go to Congress and request ANY DAMN THING!

Paul Ryan did propose a budget that would have cut funding to the military, which MAY have included cuts to security in Benghazi, but his proposal was never passed, so it is academic. You can't blame cuts that were proposed but never happened, on the FAILURES of this administration to protect our people. Even IF the Ryan budget had passed and cuts to the military funding were made, the President still has the authority to decide where security is needed most, and it could have been provided by reducing funding for security elsewhere. BUT AGAIN... the budget didn't pass, so it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Dicks, you are either a liar or just ignorant;

 
Dicks, you are either a liar or just ignorant;
Click to expand...

I'm not lying, and YOU are the one who is ignorant.

Cuts in the levels of increase for embassy security are not cuts to funding for security in Benghazi. You and Dummings can try and make that argument, but it's flat out dishonest. The House had indeed cut the levels of increase to funding for a myriad of things, it's called "fiscal responsibility" and you better start getting used to that. Now, because they didn't get an extra $2 million they requested, doesn't mean that cuts to security HAD to be made in Benghazi. That is entirely up to the discretion of the President, the Sec of Defense and State, and no one else. THEY decide where to spend the money they DID get, and if they needed more for Benghazi, they could have moved it from somewhere it was less needed, the House has nothing to do with that.

Trying to blame this on Republicans in the House who denied massive increases in spending, is a DODGE! You are not going to avoid responsibility like that. No one else made the decision to reduce security in Benghazi, Libya... one of the hottest spots in the entire world... except for Barack Hussein Obama, and his administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top