Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
Yet another display of a supposedly high ranking, supposedly capable, supposedly qualified politician to be secretary of state and have ambition to becoming POTUS.
Why do I say supposedly? ANY executive who thinks for one second that they can have something in their area of responsibility go wrong, then be able to in good conscience blame someone who works for them is beyond any intelligent comprehension.
To sit there and say the messages for increased security were handled by an underling!!!!! To even have the gall to state if the messages had gotten to her things might have turned out differently!!!!
Politician or not. Anybody who thinks they are not responsible and accountable for what goes on or not in their organization is not qualified for the job.
Anybody who agrees with her position is not qualified to make any organization judgement.
She demonstrates what has become the hallmark of the current administration...blame someone else....even in their organization.
When she states she did not do anything illegal that side steps the issue of whether what she did or did not do was right or wrong. Lawyers do not care.
They are trained to use, abuse or hide behind the letter of the law.
The political system of phony representation needs an enema. Re-elect no incumbents. Elect no lawyer to any position of fiscal or security position.
Anybody in office for more than two terms to be given notice this is their last assignment.
Just for starters.
|
Don't take as defending Hillary. Given the size of the State Department, every ambassador doesn't have a direct line to the Sec. Of State. A former ambassador to Russia stated that the process is to send a cables to State Dept. Given the importance of the cable determines who at State, that it is sent to. If it is of great importance, you send it to someone at State that has a direct line to the Secretary.
The blame game in Washington is a common practice for everyone there. She may have a leg although very shaky to stand on. She will acceot the responsibility for Benghazi, but not the blame. Because the people that take the blame get fired, or her case not elected president.
The Republicans were looking for her to contradict her first appearance at the hearing. She didn't, and they didn't learn anything new. There is a saying, "it is very easy to tell the truth, when you are telling the truth".
She may have been telling the truth along. If that is the case, why prepare three days for the hearing yesterday?
This Benghazi is nothing more than a political witch hunt. As I have stated before, they have the witch to attack. The whole lot of them should be embarrassed with this nonsense. There is no grey area here. As it has been stated, you are either for Hillary or against her. Anybody that was sitting on the fence is back on the fence given McCarty's statements. This hearing can't be taken seriously.
Concerning your last statement about incumbents is right on point. John Kasich was interviewed on Morning Joe this morning. He stated when he and Joe were sent to Congress in mid 90's, they went there to get things done. They weren't worried about getting reelected. They did things that they thought were right. If that cost them their seat, so be it. The absolute opposite is true now. Getting reelected is the only thing that counts now. He also stated that both parties have to work together to get thing done. To do this, you have to stop worrying about getting reelected. He stated , if he is elected president, he can change the current attitude in Congress. It will be hard, and will, take time. Why isn't he, a reasonable person, getting more support among Republicans?