Hillary Clinton's Poll Numbers Take A Huge Nose Dive, And Benghazi Is To Blame

One thing needs to be pointed out that as far as I can see has been totally ignored up to now. Benghazi was not an embassy, it was a consulate. Consulates are subject to a lower level of security worldwide, that's just the way of things.

Which begs the question why an Ambassador was at a consulate and what Stevens was even doing there. Of course the rumors are that he was running guns for Obama headed by Clinton. Given that we don't know where Obama was during the massacre and he only had one communication and that was with Hillary, it definitely doesn't smell good
 
Everybody doesn't have spirituality nor principles. They see voting your conscience as a 'throwaway vote.'

I have spirituality and principles. I also have enough common sense to know that voting for a Green Party candidate is a "throwaway vote". You want to change things, don't start at the top. Start at the bottom, local level, and start supporting candidates who share your views. Eventually, one will make it to the top

Any and everything that Israel doesn't like would be bulldozed.

Of course, any candidate you support who shares your anti-semitic views of Israel will never win an office.

I don't think she's supportive of Israel.


Why? Because she doesn't support the current government of Israel?
 
I'll always believe her gender was an issue, more so than Obama's race.
That's because you're a feminazi, and see boggie men around every corner. No conservative cares that she's a woman; we hate her because she's liberal and a liar.

I can't speak for sexism in your Party.
 
That's because you're a feminazi, and see boggie men around every corner. No conservative cares that she's a woman; we hate her because she's liberal and a liar.

I can't speak for sexism in your Party.

Right. And the Fox News pundits didn't just say that it's anti-science to allow women in the workforce. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Conservatives are more pro women's rights? The epic smackdown even came from a conservative woman. Although Megan Kelly is an exception among conservative women, as she is actually educated. At Stanford nonetheless. Well, some things you can't explain. The money can't be that good.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-ke...d-dobbs-who-died-made-you-scientist-in-chief/
 
Right. And the Fox News pundits didn't just say that it's anti-science to allow women in the workforce. Are you seriously trying to suggest that Conservatives are more pro women's rights? The epic smackdown even came from a conservative woman. Although Megan Kelly is an exception among conservative women, as she is actually educated. At Stanford nonetheless. Well, some things you can't explain. The money can't be that good.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/megyn-ke...d-dobbs-who-died-made-you-scientist-in-chief/
I'm sure you can get specific quotes from individuals stating all sorts of silly things. That's not the policy of the modern conservative ideology; never was.
 
I don't think she's supportive of Israel.

You gotta be kidding?

100323-clinton-aipac.jpg


243954-occupy-aipac.jpg
 
I'll always believe her gender was an issue, more so than Obama's race.

I have to seriously disagree with that good friend.

The albatross she had around her neck that Obama did not have was Iraq. Had she not voted for war in Iraq, she would be the president today.

Remember that African-Americans supported her more than Obama .. until Uncle Bill went nuclear.

Hillary Apologizes to Black Voters for Bill Clinton and Ferraro's Racial Insensitivity
March 13, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/79573...ll_clinton_and_ferraro's_racial_insensitivity
 
Giving money to the Palestinians is supportive of the Palestinians.

We already give Israel tons of taxpayer dollars.

Since they use it to buy weapons to harass Israel, it is also not supportive to Israel.

For the record, I'm for limited military support of Israel, since that State was set up by us and our allies as part of the WW2 treatise.
 
US identifies terrorists who attacked its Benghazi consulate in 2012

Officials in the US say they have identified five men who might be responsible for the attack on the diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012 and there is enough evidence to justify seizing them by military force as suspected terrorists or killing them with a drone strike. However, there is not enough proof to try them in a US civilian court as the Obama administration prefers.

The men remain at large while the FBI gathers evidence. The investigation has been slowed by the reduced US intelligence presence in the region since the 11 September 2012 attacks and the limited ability to assist by Libya's post-revolutionary law enforcement and intelligence agencies, which are still in their infancy since the overthrow of the Gaddafi regime.

The decision not to seize the men militarily underscores Washington's desire to move away from hunting terrorists as enemy combatants and holding them at the military prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. The preference is towards a process in which most are apprehended and tried by the countries where they are living or arrested by the US with the host country's co-operation, and tried in the US criminal justice system.

A senior Obama administration official, speaking to the Associated Press on condition of anonymity, said the FBI had identified a number of individuals it believed could have information or may have been involved and was considering options to apprehend them. But taking action in remote eastern Libya would be difficult and America's relationship with Libya had to be considered. The Libyan embassy did not respond to multiple requests for comment, the AP said.

The FBI and other US intelligence agencies identified the men through contacts in Libya and by monitoring their communications, officials said. They are thought to be members of Ansar al-Shariah, the Libyan militia group whose fighters were seen near the US diplomatic facility prior to the attack.
US officials say FBI surveillance has gathered proof that the five men were either at the scene of the first attack or somehow involved. In intercepts at least one of them bragged about taking part. Some of the men had also been in contact with a network of well-known regional jihadists, including al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb, the officials said.

The attack on the US diplomatic mission killed the ambassador, Chris Stevens, and three other Americans weeks before president Barack Obama's re-election. Since then, Republicans in congress have condemned the administration's handling of the situation, criticising the level of embassy security, questioning the talking points provided to UN ambassador Susan Rice for her public appearances to explain the attack and suggesting the White House tried to play down the incident to minimise its effect on the president's campaign.

The FBI released photos of three of the five suspects earlier this month. The images were captured by security cameras at the US diplomatic post during the attack, but it took weeks for the FBI to see and study them. It took the agency three weeks to get to Libya because of security problems.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/22/benghazi-consul-attack-us-identifies-suspects
 
Something that was totally misguided and never should have been done, IMO.
It doesn't really matter at this point, does it? That is, unless agreements made by our forefathers mean nothing.

Or, you find those agreements burdensome to you so wish to derail them?
 
I'm sure you can get specific quotes from individuals stating all sorts of silly things. That's not the policy of the modern conservative ideology; never was.

Modern conservative ideology? Ha! Can you define that in a nutshell?
 
Since they use it to buy weapons to harass Israel, it is also not supportive to Israel.

For the record, I'm for limited military support of Israel, since that State was set up by us and our allies as part of the WW2 treatise.

Israel; has there ever been a bigger foreign policy clusterfuck since the beginning of time? I think not. Look, I don't particularly hate anybody, except maybe macho men, but giving the British Protectorate of Palestine to the Zionists based on some 3000 year old biblical nonsense was a bad move. South America would have been a better choice, as was suggested I think at one time. Peoples get displaced. Ask the American Indian and then deal with it. But that is a topic for another thread.

All the Dems are too pro-Israeli in my view. It's not the 51st state as some would think. I have written to Diane Feinstein demanding to know how she can be sitting US Senator and have dual citizenship with another country. Pelosi too I think, or is it Boxer. Israel receives $3 billion a year in foreign aid from the US tax payer. And they have Universal health care so that their citizens don't go broke from catastrophic illness or injury. Go figure. (Damn...12 billion in Afghanistan...but let's cut Medicare..fools)

Foreign Aid FY 2011 in US $ millions:

Afghanistan 12,924.40
Israel 3,026.40
Iraq 2,147.60
Pakistan 1,700.10
Egypt 1,471.20
Haiti 1,263.40
Kenya 1,032.10
Jordan 850.8

(I just had a little cut and paste issue, I think I'm okay now)
 
It doesn't really matter at this point, does it? That is, unless agreements made by our forefathers mean nothing.

Or, you find those agreements burdensome to you so wish to derail them?

No, it really doesn't. And the US should honor those agreements. But I can look back on it and gripe about it. Kind of like Roe vs. Wade. I don't agree with it but I ain't gonna go out and blow up any abortion clinics ... but I can sure look back on it and say it was misguided.
 
Back
Top