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.

If what you are say is true regarding executives being responsible for what goes on in their corporation, did you vote for Rick Scott for Florida governor? He was the CEO of Columbia HCA at the time of the massive Medicare fraud conviction. Scott claimed he knew nothing of the fraud even though the hospital consortium was fined the largest amount in Medicare history.

Originally Posted by Guest

If what you are say is true regarding executives being responsible for what goes on in their corporation, did you vote for Rick Scott for Florida governor? He was the CEO of Columbia HCA at the time of the massive Medicare fraud conviction. Scott claimed he knew nothing of the fraud even though the hospital consortium was fined the largest amount in Medicare history.

Just a reminder he took the Fifth 75 times

uploadfromtaptalk1445609444224.JPG

He is a politician.
Why do people elect such folks?

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?

Originally Posted by Guest

He is a politician.
Why do people elect such folks?

Maybe in their worst day they are better than the political encumbent???

I'm not sure I get it....

She stated that she allowed the security experts; the ones on the ground make the call on security requirements for the compound. Also, the CIA had a hand in deciding security requirements and/or requests.

If Hillary had unilaterally decided to increase or decrease security, would most of you not say she should have followed the recommendations of the experts?

I guess you can't have it both ways....Which is it?

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm not sure I get it....

She stated that she allowed the security experts; the ones on the ground make the call on security requirements for the compound. Also, the CIA had a hand in deciding security requirements and/or requests.

If Hillary had unilaterally decided to increase or decrease security, would most of you not say she should have followed the recommendations of the experts?

I guess you can't have it both ways....Which is it?

Why don't you email Hilary and ask her?

Originally Posted by Guest

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?

Every cable sent to the State Dept is addressed to SecState and someone close to her had better be reading them and briefing her on the contents. She has NO/NO excuse for not knowing what is going on.
Every Ambassador is in contact with the SecState. Every embassy I have worked at, required special cables sent directly to the Secstate on a periodic basis, giving a situation report. She has NO/NO excuse, but she sure seems to be able to get over on these yokels that know nothing about how embassies are run.
Hilary Clinton had classified information on an unclassified computer system. I've seen the redacted emails and could still tell by the coding that they were highly classified. She is violation of Federal Law and should be prosecuted. Hopefully we have an FBI that is not as corrupt as our politicians in congress and in the White House.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm not sure I get it....

She stated that she allowed the security experts; the ones on the ground make the call on security requirements for the compound. Also, the CIA had a hand in deciding security requirements and/or requests.

If Hillary had unilaterally decided to increase or decrease security, would most of you not say she should have followed the recommendations of the experts?

I guess you can't have it both ways....Which is it?

She also said that she did NOT have anything to do with approving or disapproving of security changes. BS! She is a liar. Anyone that has worked with the StateDept knows how much she is lying and no one in congress can tell because they don't know how the State Dept works.

Originally Posted by Guest

I'm not sure I get it....

She stated that she allowed the security experts; the ones on the ground make the call on security requirements for the compound. Also, the CIA had a hand in deciding security requirements and/or requests.

If Hillary had unilaterally decided to increase or decrease security, would most of you not say she should have followed the recommendations of the experts?

I guess you can't have it both ways....Which is it?

It appears to me that the so called "security experts" took no action and made no recommendation with regard to the 600+ requests from Ambassador Stevens. In fact, the security force in Libya was reduced from 38 to 9 during Clinton's stewardship at the State Department.

Billary knew that the attack was a planned terrorist attack on Stevens. She even said so in an email to her daughter. She lied to the public, probably on orders from Obama. Both of them insisted that it was due to a video. Funny how that video only had 40 Youtube hits on it, and yet all the attacks on the embassies in Libya and Egypt were supposed to be a result of that terrible video. Immediately violating that guy's 1st Amendments rights, he was snatched out of his home in the middle of the night, reminiscent of the KGB raids in the old Soviet Union.
Billary lied, of course. Anyone voting for her has to be too stupid to tie their own shoes, or just as corrupt and criminal as she is. If that is the best that the Dems have, then they should hide their heads in shame.

Originally Posted by Guest

Billary knew that the attack was a planned terrorist attack on Stevens. She even said so in an email to her daughter. She lied to the public, probably on orders from Obama. Both of them insisted that it was due to a video. Funny how that video only had 40 Youtube hits on it, and yet all the attacks on the embassies in Libya and Egypt were supposed to be a result of that terrible video. Immediately violating that guy's 1st Amendments rights, he was snatched out of his home in the middle of the night, reminiscent of the KGB raids in the old Soviet Union.
Billary lied, of course. Anyone voting for her has to be too stupid to tie their own shoes, or just as corrupt and criminal as she is. If that is the best that the Dems have, then they should hide their heads in shame.

Dear Guest: You beat me to it as no on before you addressed this issue. In fact those that claim nothing at all to the hearings do not understand that by virtue of the fact that this new information has been presented is the beginning of the end. This fact is an opening into other areas.

The Committee even the Democrats knew she was going to lie and she was going to present herself as presidential. she had many years to think about it and many months to practice her performance. The Committee has many more witnesses.

People who have never been present in legal or congressional hearings do not understand that question and answer format (Q&A) are a carefully orchestrated event. The Committee already knows how Clinton is going to answer. And Clinton already knows what questions the Committee is going to ask (the known knowns) What the meetings are about is trying to open up the (known unknowns) and that is like building a puzzles or play chess.

I often have wondered why progressives continued with the specious claims that 9-11 was on Bush's watch and so Bush was responsible. Or that WMD were not found and so despite faulty intelligence it was Bush's fault.

Yet 4 people were killed in Benghazi and that Clinton was no where to be found on 9-11 but knew Libya was about to explode. That on that same night told a number of people it was a terrorist attack but blamed a video
As to security her response was to push responsibility downward. None of it her doing. she refuses to this day to own it and yet progressives have the audacity to defend this excuse of a human being.

An honorable leader would in a proverbial sense fall on her sword. Instead she places four families and this nation in turmoil and at great expense because she doesn't know how to tell the truth

Personal Best Regards:

To those on this thread who feel as though Sec. Clinton was not forthcoming in her testimony and does not deserve the Office of President, don't vote for her.

It is relatively easy. Just vote for the Republican nominee or if you do not like that nominee either, stay home and do not vote. Entirely, your choice.

Hillary does not need your vote to win the State of Florida electoral votes. She has it locked with the Democrat blocs in Tampa-Clearwater, Miami-Dade, and Orlando.

Originally Posted by Guest

To those on this thread who feel as though Sec. Clinton was not forthcoming in her testimony and does not deserve the Office of President, don't vote for her.

It is relatively easy. Just vote for the Republican nominee or if you do not like that nominee either, stay home and do not vote. Entirely, your choice.

Hillary does not need your vote to win the State of Florida electoral votes. She has it locked with the Democrat blocs in Tampa-Clearwater, Miami-Dade, and Orlando.

Meaning they could care less about the person or qualifications as long as it is a democrat and the freebies continue!

I will most likely vote for Hillary, certainly not Trump nor Carson, and I have never taken a handout of any kind.