So Republicans, tell me more about Benghazi?

[fatdaddycool]

Turns out you were all once again wrong. No order to stand down, no intelligence prior to attack, and no deceit from the administration. So basically you spent two years lying to everyone including yourselves and now nothing. It was all you could talk about for two fucking years and now??
I think if I hold my ear up to your mouths I can hear the ocean. ......

Driven by hate, fed by ignorance. .... today's GOP

 

[Mags]

Turns out you were all once again wrong. No order to stand down, no intelligence prior to attack, and no deceit from the administration. So basically you spent two years lying to everyone including yourselves and now nothing. It was all you could talk about for two fucking years and now??
I think if I hold my ear up to your mouths I can hear the ocean. ......

Driven by hate, fed by ignorance. .... today's GOP

OK, I'll bite.... to quote Clinton "What difference does it make"?

There are 4 items here, related and somewhat related, that are still stuck in my craw:

1) multiple requests for additional security at Benghazi where denied/ignored by the administration. Nobody has explained why. I think that should be answered.

2) I'd like someone to explain why, when additional security was requested, and the anniversary of 9-11 was coming up, that nobody in the WH thought that there could be significant risk here. Seemed like most folks could see the potential of this type of incident coming on the anniversary of that dreaded day.

3) It is my understanding that Secretary Clinton did not turn over a single email in regards to these issues. There was supposedly a two week "dark" period with no emails around the attack. To put in mildly, this is suspicious. This needs to be addressed - and confirmed if this is true or not. If true, those communications need to be turned over.

4) Regarding the email. Simply, the entire server needs to be handed over to an independent arbitrator to review and forward the appropriate emails. The convenience argument made by Hillary is bunk. Setting up a server, maintaining it in your own home, etc is not in any way convenient or easy. There is no other reason to take this extraordinary step other than to be non-transparent and hide your emails. In fact, a number of FOIA requests have not been able to get the information. Once an employee decides to commingle personal and work emails on the account they choose to be their "official" work account, then they all become property of your employer/government. Most people using work email at a company know this to be the case and have no expectation of privacy. I have not seen any justification that makes sense to why the extraordinary step of setting up a personal server at home, to function as her work email was appropriate- the only explanation I can come up with was to control and hide the emails. I'd love to hear a reasonable explanation if there is another one. Hillary is very intelligent - she knew exactly what she was doing - and knew the risks of being caught were minor compared to her communications becoming public. That just smells bad. Other government folks have used personal emails for SOME of their correspondence (not all), but nobody else took the step of setting up their own personal server in their own homes. As far as I can see, the ONLY reason to do so is to control the information, to keep it from being subject to FOIA requests. That is an issue - whether you are a Republican or Democrat.

 

[Duff Miver]

OK, I'll bite. Blah...blah...blah

I don't doubt that you "bite"...and swallow too.

The Maggot repeats the Faux Nuze lines. Accusations, hints of plots, no facts, just the usual right wing distortions and bogus claims. The Maggot knows nothing...of course.

The Maggot has no facts.

What else would you expect from a Maggot?

"Stuck in your craw", Maggot?

Stick THIS in your craw:

And, by the way, Maggot, my dog shits things more intelligent and less repulsive than you.

Need a picture of that too?

It takes a real whinny, crybaby, coward to refuse an offer of free drinks and dinner on the Rue Cler in Paris...Hello.......The Maggot.

 

[Mags]

I don't doubt that you "bite"...and swallow too.

The Maggot repeats the Faux Nuze lines. Accusations, hints of plots, no facts, just the usual right wing distortions and bogus claims. The Maggot knows nothing...of course.

The Maggot has no facts.

What else would you expect from a Maggot?

"Stuck in your craw", Maggot?

Stick THIS in your craw:

And, by the way, Maggot, my dog shits things more intelligent and less repulsive than you.

Need a picture of that too?

It takes a real whinny, crybaby, coward to refuse an offer of free drinks and dinner on the Rue Cler in Paris...Hello.......The Maggot.

I asked a number of very reasonable questions. As usual, you can't defend the behavior - just resort to name calling, etc. Because I'm sure even you realize there are issues here that need to, and should be addressed.

Sure, it is surprising that I didn't accept your invitation. You seem like such a nice, warm, engaging fellow. What in the world was I thinking? :mj07:

 

[fatdaddycool]

OK, I'll bite.... to quote Clinton "What difference does it make"?

There are 4 items here, related and somewhat related, that are still stuck in my craw:

1) multiple requests for additional security at Benghazi where denied/ignored by the administration. Nobody has explained why. I think that should be answered.

2) I'd like someone to explain why, when additional security was requested, and the anniversary of 9-11 was coming up, that nobody in the WH thought that there could be significant risk here. Seemed like most folks could see the potential of this type of incident coming on the anniversary of that dreaded day.

3) It is my understanding that Secretary Clinton did not turn over a single email in regards to these issues. There was supposedly a two week "dark" period with no emails around the attack. To put in mildly, this is suspicious. This needs to be addressed - and confirmed if this is true or not. If true, those communications need to be turned over.

4) Regarding the email. Simply, the entire server needs to be handed over to an independent arbitrator to review and forward the appropriate emails. The convenience argument made by Hillary is bunk. Setting up a server, maintaining it in your own home, etc is not in any way convenient or easy. There is no other reason to take this extraordinary step other than to be non-transparent and hide your emails. In fact, a number of FOIA requests have not been able to get the information. Once an employee decides to commingle personal and work emails on the account they choose to be their "official" work account, then they all become property of your employer/government. Most people using work email at a company know this to be the case and have no expectation of privacy. I have not seen any justification that makes sense to why the extraordinary step of setting up a personal server at home, to function as her work email was appropriate- the only explanation I can come up with was to control and hide the emails. I'd love to hear a reasonable explanation if there is another one. Hillary is very intelligent - she knew exactly what she was doing - and knew the risks of being caught were minor compared to her communications becoming public. That just smells bad. Other government folks have used personal emails for SOME of their correspondence (not all), but nobody else took the step of setting up their own personal server in their own homes. As far as I can see, the ONLY reason to do so is to control the information, to keep it from being subject to FOIA requests. That is an issue - whether you are a Republican or Democrat.

Mags,
Your questions would be much more reasonable if they were actual questions rather than already disproven propaganda in the form of a question.

I will try to answer then as clearly as possible.

The was no request for additional troops for security purposes. What you are speaking of is a manipulation of actual truth by the theory driven right wing media.
What was requested was a large increase in funds in order to train additional local police force which could then be used as civilian security. However, the additional funds were denied due to the better than 80% failure rate of the locals to provide security once trained.

2.) The Department of justice and Republican led house investigation committee made it very clear there was no prior intelligence leading up to this attack, unlike the mountains of intelligence Dick and George very clearly had leading up to the real 9/11 attack you seem all to willing to accept as good leadership.

The emails you are speaking of don't exist. Is that simple. They just aren't there and never were. All of this was made vehemently clear by the Republican led house committee.

I think the more pressing question is why are you asserting that the white house had some sort of prior knowledge of these events when they clearly did not? You have the ability to read the exact same report of the findings I do, yet you choose to ignore them in order to press forward with a false platform of fault?

Thats not how it works mags. Every single assertion you put forth has been disproven by the report, you choose to ignore it. That's not a "reasonable" thought process.


Reasonable would be to ask something like, what could the motivation be for the GOP to press an issue of "email fraud" upon Hillary Clinton when the likes of Karl Rove, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice all used the same personal email formats throughout their tenure? Why aren't you screaming about the destruction of what most consider to be millions of personal white house staff emails?

See it's that whole hypocrisy thing mags.
Most people don't understand what that is. The best I can explain it would be something like, oh I don't know, maybe condemning a man for spanking a child and calling it child abuse, then excusing the exact same act because it was a family member or because "that's different". Two incidents, same infraction but not the same reaction.
That's called hypocrisy.

Calling for military action against foreign extremists in order to protect innocent women and children, while also advocating to ship innocent women and children immigrants back into harm's way and certain death is called hypocrisy.

So I hope I've made clear what you're asking about. What I will say is that you do need to rethink your position on what a reasonable question is. When the answers are right in front of your face yet you refuse acknowledge them doesn't ever add up to reasonable.

Hope this helps,
FDC

 

[Mags]

Mags,
The was no request for additional troops for security purposes. What you are speaking of is a manipulation of actual truth by the theory driven right wing media.
What was requested was a large increase in funds in order to train additional local police force which could then be used as civilian security. However, the additional funds were denied due to the better than 80% failure rate of the locals to provide security once trained.

Actually, there were multiple requests for additional security. The State department acknowledged this, that there were a number of requests that were rejected in the months leading up to the attack. This was documented many places, including a Washington Post article of October 10, 2012.

2.) The Department of justice and Republican led house investigation committee made it very clear there was no prior intelligence leading up to this attack, unlike the mountains of intelligence Dick and George very clearly had leading up to the real 9/11 attack you seem all to willing to accept as good leadership.

Not sure how Chaney and Bush tie into Benghazi. Much of what you wrote was about things that happened under the Bush administration. GW is not running for president - so he is not a threat to the good of our country anymore. But Hillary is - and she should be vetted thoroughly, especially given the history of the Clinton's.

Of course, I never said that the WH HAD intelligence saying an attack was going to happen at Benghazi. What I DID say is that their were requests for additional security (which was true) and it didn't get a genius to think that they might attack there on the anniversary of 9/11. A reasonable person could forsee this occurring on 9-11, with everything else that was going on there leading up to that day.

I know, I know, what difference does it make?

Reasonable would be to ask something like, what could the motivation be for the GOP to press an issue of "email fraud" upon Hillary Clinton when the likes of Karl Rove, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice all used the same personal email formats throughout their tenure? Why aren't you screaming about the destruction of what most consider to be millions of personal white house staff emails?

This response is laughable. FDC, I know you are an intelligent guy, so I am surprised by this response. Rice has acknowledged that she did not use email. I have no idea on Rove (other than that he is an idiot). Powell used personal email, sure. But there was a huge difference in what Clinton did and what Powell did. Powell used his email, a commercial account (think Gmail). Nobody, I mean nobody, went to the step that Clinton did to hide her email in setting up a personal server for her email. There is no reason to do so, other than to have the ability, if needed, to hide info.

A Blackberry enterprise server, installed by a business, is the most secure email you can do. Her personal email was not set up this way. What Clinton did was not more secure - that isn't the reason she did it.

The only reason she went to that time, expense, and effort was to make sure her emails could never come back to bite her in the event she said/did something that was unsavory. That, of course, doesn't mean there is necessarily a smoking gun in her emails - there could be, there could not be. But the effort of setting up her own server at her home is an unprecedented step that nobody else in government ever did. Even you can see how suspicious that is. If a Republican did this, you'd be all over it. But Hillary gets a pass with you.

Comparing what Powell did in 2000 (using a commercial email account for government business) and comparing what Clinton did (setting up her own server so she could control her emails and ensure that property of the US government could never get out unless she allowed it) is night and day. To put it in a "Breaking Bad" construct, it would be similar to Powell being a meth user (which is bad) but Clinton being the person who cooked the meth and being the dealer (Walter White). Both were wrong - but Clinton's behavior was so much worse and reprehensible.

Again, the only argument for setting up your own server (I've never seen or heard of ANYONE doing so) was to prohibit transparency. It certainly wasn't for security. Many security experts have gone on record saying her home brew system was not nearly secure as other methods. In fact, Hillary did not even offer a defense for this, because she had none, and she knew it. She only said she went to all the time, effort, and expense of doing this "for convenience". Everybody (but you evidently) can see through this and realize that this was not a convenient or easy approach to using a personal email.

It wasn't easy or convenient, but only a way to circumvent FOIA requests and the like. I can't think of anything more damning of her. She anticipated that there might be an issue with her emails someday, so she set this up right before being secretary of state. These are government owned communications, and we all have a right to her (and anyone else's) emails when they work for the government. If she commingled personal emails with work emails, then that is her own problem - she doesn't have the right to delete records on her email that she designated for government work. It is no different that if you send personal emails from your work account when you work for a company.

But I would not expect you to agree - it appears you will defend Clinton, no matter what she does/did. But I'm sure that even you, in the back of your mind, realize that something is fishy here. But I don't expect you to ever admit it.

It's funny - many Republicans can admit that Bush wasn't the greatest president. Dems sure hate him. But, Dems will never admit when one of their own are bad, like Obama. Dems will never be honest - they will support their own no matter what they do. At least Republicans can be honest about their candidates and officials. Dems will always ignore the bad things their candidates do and either change the subject (like you did pivoting to Bush and Cheaney) or just flat out ignore it.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Mags,
Request for additional funding to train and hire security personnel in a foreign country is not the same as "requesting additional security" as in troops or American security personnel. They were asking for a budget increase to find a failing program that was doing little more than training potential enemies. Something this country has been all too proficient at during our short history.

The email thing is all speculative and has no basis in fact. That's what you think she was doing, yet you have no proof of that other than your bias.

I know if no president that has faced the obstructionism and outright hatred that our current POTUS has had to bear. You insist that he's done poorly and yet cannot specify on anything that he has done which has failed. All presidents have shortcomings, but I disagree that President Obama has had complete failure of policy.

 

[Mags]

Mags,
The email thing is all speculative and has no basis in fact. That's what you think she was doing, yet you have no proof of that other than your bias.

We agree to disagree. The "email thing" is fact - she absolutely set up her own server, which nobody else has done. This is not disputed. The question is why. And given that she is a lawyer, and very smart, this is not a random "let's do something different and set up our own server" type of thing. There is a reason for anything a Clinton does. Everything they say is measured and words are chosen carefully. "I did not have sex with that woman". "Well, it matters what your definition of "is" is."

I am shocked that you aren't a bit curious what her reasons were for setting up her own server. It is unheard of. But, like I said, you will back a Dem to the ends of the earth and never question them.

Clinton admitted that she set up her own server and that she decided what emails to delete. That isn't speculation, that is fact.

As far as Obama, yes I think he has done some good things. The auto bailout, in which he expanded upon what Bush started, was very important. But he has done bad things also. The ACA is a good example. I realize you think it is good - but I don't, for many reasons. And no, I don't want to get into an argument about that issue - because again, since a Dem set up the program, it has to be the best thing since sliced bread.

You are an ultra-liberal. Which is fine, you have a right to be whatever you want. I am a financial conservative with liberal social views. I am much closer to the middle than you are - which allows me to see the good and bad in both Republicans and Democrats. I don't feel that you can be objective - your bias is too strong.

 

[fatdaddycool]

We agree to disagree. The "email thing" is fact - she absolutely set up her own server, which nobody else has done. This is not disputed. The question is why. And given that she is a lawyer, and very smart, this is not a random "let's do something different and set up our own server" type of thing. There is a reason for anything a Clinton does. Everything they say is measured and words are chosen carefully. "I did not have sex with that woman". "Well, it matters what your definition of "is" is."

I am shocked that you aren't a bit curious what her reasons were for setting up her own server. It is unheard of. But, like I said, you will back a Dem to the ends of the earth and never question them.

Clinton admitted that she set up her own server and that she decided what emails to delete. That isn't speculation, that is fact.

As far as Obama, yes I think he has done some good things. The auto bailout, in which he expanded upon what Bush started, was very important. But he has done bad things also. The ACA is a good example. I realize you think it is good - but I don't, for many reasons. And no, I don't want to get into an argument about that issue - because again, since a Dem set up the program, it has to be the best thing since sliced bread.

You are an ultra-liberal. Which is fine, you have a right to be whatever you want. I am a financial conservative with liberal social views. I am much closer to the middle than you are - which allows me to see the good and bad in both Republicans and Democrats. I don't feel that you can be objective - your bias is too strong.

If I was an ultra liberal I would be for gun control, I'm not. I'd be for reducing military spending and disarmament, I'm not.

We agree to disagree. The "email thing" is fact - she absolutely set up her own server, which nobody else has done. This is not disputed. The question is why. And given that she is a lawyer, and very smart, this is not a random "let's do something different and set up our own server" type of thing. There is a reason for anything a Clinton does. Everything they say is measured and words are chosen carefully. "I did not have sex with that woman". "Well, it matters what your definition of "is" is."

I am shocked that you aren't a bit curious what her reasons were for setting up her own server. It is unheard of. But, like I said, you will back a Dem to the ends of the earth and never question them.

Clinton admitted that she set up her own server and that she decided what emails to delete. That isn't speculation, that is fact.

As far as Obama, yes I think he has done some good things. The auto bailout, in which he expanded upon what Bush started, was very important. But he has done bad things also. The ACA is a good example. I realize you think it is good - but I don't, for many reasons. And no, I don't want to get into an argument about that issue - because again, since a Dem set up the program, it has to be the best thing since sliced bread.

You are an ultra-liberal. Which is fine, you have a right to be whatever you want. I am a financial conservative with liberal social views. I am much closer to the middle than you are - which allows me to see the good and bad in both Republicans and Democrats. I don't feel that you can be objective - your bias is too strong.

If I was an ultra liberal I would be for gun control, I'm not. I'd be for reducing military spending and disarmament, I'm not.

The only thing factual you've stated about Hillary's emails are that she set up her own server. You cannot say with any knowledge or surety as to her reasons why. It's really as simple as that. You can speculate and say things like, there is no other possible explanation, but that's not true.
You also said you're a fiscal conservative while being a social liberal or something to that effect. You're not in favor of regulating the insurance industry and regularly speak on behalf of insurance companies. A social liberal would understand that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies are both top five contributors to conservatives. Insurance companies bleed people dry and leave them to die in pain when they wouldn't pay their claims. That's pretty much the biggest reason we have the ACA, to regulate the insurance industry. I am a social liberal. I am for free education, free health care and social programs to protect and assist the elderly, needy, sick, handicapped, etc.. you can't say that. You may feel we need a couple social services here and there but I doubt you believe in the welfare system, Medicare or medicaid. I may be wrong, then again you assumed me to be an ultra liberal and you were wrong so i don't feel so bad.

Here's the thing mags, there are the haves and the have nots. The haves are all for any program that they don't have to pay for and it benefits them to some degree. A program like food stamps would not be one of those programs. You're not for food stamps, you've said so before. I've got news for you, you're nowhere near the middle.

 

[fatdaddycool]

Not sure how that double post thing happened