Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Sorry....OBL. You are STILL of topic though. We are talking about Hillary and the FACT she is to damn old. NOW her FAILURES in government DO show that BUT your off topic praise singing for OBL and his works are not relevant.Who is OSB?You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?
Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?
Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.
I didn't bring up bin Laden. Clementine did in post #231.Sorry....OBL. You are STILL of topic though. We are talking about Hillary and the FACT she is to damn old. NOW her FAILURES in government DO show that BUT your off topic praise singing for OBL and his works are not relevant.Who is OSB?You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?
Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?
Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.
Now if you want to argue that her being senile did NOT play a role fine. But the subject IS Hillary.
When "THEY" bring up Benghazi it's about how SHE handled it. YOUR argument about OBL has NOTHING to do with the way SHE handled Benghazi.I didn't bring up bin Laden. Clementine did in post #231.Sorry....OBL. You are STILL of topic though. We are talking about Hillary and the FACT she is to damn old. NOW her FAILURES in government DO show that BUT your off topic praise singing for OBL and his works are not relevant.Who is OSB?You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?
Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?
Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.
Now if you want to argue that her being senile did NOT play a role fine. But the subject IS Hillary.
As far as being off topic, TFB if you don't like conservative hypocrisy thrown in your face when rightwingers bring up Benghazi.
What about how Issa handled the investigation? She appeared, answered the questions, he refused to accept her testimony, tried and tried to make hay with no success. America wasn't interested in this crazy guy and his investigation into this tragic event. They aren't going to be more interested now, they will want to move on, get to know the R candidates which won't be good.When "THEY" bring up Benghazi it's about how SHE handled it. YOUR argument about OBL has NOTHING to do with the way SHE handled Benghazi.I didn't bring up bin Laden. Clementine did in post #231.Sorry....OBL. You are STILL of topic though. We are talking about Hillary and the FACT she is to damn old. NOW her FAILURES in government DO show that BUT your off topic praise singing for OBL and his works are not relevant.Who is OSB?You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?
Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?
Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.
Now if you want to argue that her being senile did NOT play a role fine. But the subject IS Hillary.
As far as being off topic, TFB if you don't like conservative hypocrisy thrown in your face when rightwingers bring up Benghazi.
How many ambassadors were killed during this time.......hmmmmmm?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
Again, I didn't inject OBL into this thread. Someone else did. I merely replied to their claim that Clinton was offered OBL (which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission pointed out there was no evidence to support such a claim).When "THEY" bring up Benghazi it's about how SHE handled it. YOUR argument about OBL has NOTHING to do with the way SHE handled Benghazi.I didn't bring up bin Laden. Clementine did in post #231.Sorry....OBL. You are STILL of topic though. We are talking about Hillary and the FACT she is to damn old. NOW her FAILURES in government DO show that BUT your off topic praise singing for OBL and his works are not relevant.Who is OSB?You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?
Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?
Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.
Now if you want to argue that her being senile did NOT play a role fine. But the subject IS Hillary.
As far as being off topic, TFB if you don't like conservative hypocrisy thrown in your face when rightwingers bring up Benghazi.
BUSH was NOT in office during that attack. NOR in ANY government office during THAT attack. He IS NOT relevant to HER ACTIONS.Again, I didn't inject OBL into this thread. Someone else did. I merely replied to their claim that Clinton was offered OBL (which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission pointed out there was no evidence to support such a claim).When "THEY" bring up Benghazi it's about how SHE handled it. YOUR argument about OBL has NOTHING to do with the way SHE handled Benghazi.I didn't bring up bin Laden. Clementine did in post #231.Sorry....OBL. You are STILL of topic though. We are talking about Hillary and the FACT she is to damn old. NOW her FAILURES in government DO show that BUT your off topic praise singing for OBL and his works are not relevant.Who is OSB?You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?
Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?
Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?
Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.
Now if you want to argue that her being senile did NOT play a role fine. But the subject IS Hillary.
As far as being off topic, TFB if you don't like conservative hypocrisy thrown in your face when rightwingers bring up Benghazi.
And it's perfectly reasonable to counter Hillary's mistakes regarding Benghazi with Bush's over terrorist attacks on his watch. Conservatives are trying desperately to establish an aura of incompetence surrounding Hillary so that the electorate will be less likely to vote for her. But that same aura of incompetence didn't prevent the right from re-electing Bush, despite fuckups far beyond anything you imagine Hillary has done.
And truth be told, the right doesn't give two shits about Stevens' death or the other 3 Americans. They are using their deaths as a political tool with the hopes it will help them defeat Hillary. You know this because there have been 9 (so far) investigations into Benghazi. Meanwhile, there were zero investigations into any one of the dozen or so consulate/embassy attacks while Bush was president.
The right clearly doesn't give a shit about such attacks on consulates. ALL that matters to them is how they can use it to their political advantage.
That's a pretty stupid line of defense if you're trying to say the life of one ambassador is more valuable than 60 non-ambassadors. There were even diplomats among those 60, though not any ambassadors. There were no ambassadors killed due to Whitewater yet the right opened several investigations into that as well. Meanwhile, 10 attacks on U.S. consulates. 60 people killed. 0 investigations by the right.How many ambassadors were killed during this time.......hmmmmmm?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
Of course Bush is relevant. Again, the right is saying Hillary is incompetent to be president because of Benghazi; meanwhile, we had a dozen Benghazi's while Bush was president and many of the same people insisting Hillary isn't qualified because of Benghazi didn't think a bunch of Benghazi's, plus 9.11, disqualified Bush from running again in 2004.BUSH was NOT in office during that attack. NOR in ANY government office during THAT attack. He IS NOT relevant to HER ACTIONS.Again, I didn't inject OBL into this thread. Someone else did. I merely replied to their claim that Clinton was offered OBL (which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission pointed out there was no evidence to support such a claim).When "THEY" bring up Benghazi it's about how SHE handled it. YOUR argument about OBL has NOTHING to do with the way SHE handled Benghazi.I didn't bring up bin Laden. Clementine did in post #231.Sorry....OBL. You are STILL of topic though. We are talking about Hillary and the FACT she is to damn old. NOW her FAILURES in government DO show that BUT your off topic praise singing for OBL and his works are not relevant.Who is OSB?
Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?
Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?
Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.
Now if you want to argue that her being senile did NOT play a role fine. But the subject IS Hillary.
As far as being off topic, TFB if you don't like conservative hypocrisy thrown in your face when rightwingers bring up Benghazi.
And it's perfectly reasonable to counter Hillary's mistakes regarding Benghazi with Bush's over terrorist attacks on his watch. Conservatives are trying desperately to establish an aura of incompetence surrounding Hillary so that the electorate will be less likely to vote for her. But that same aura of incompetence didn't prevent the right from re-electing Bush, despite fuckups far beyond anything you imagine Hillary has done.
And truth be told, the right doesn't give two shits about Stevens' death or the other 3 Americans. They are using their deaths as a political tool with the hopes it will help them defeat Hillary. You know this because there have been 9 (so far) investigations into Benghazi. Meanwhile, there were zero investigations into any one of the dozen or so consulate/embassy attacks while Bush was president.
The right clearly doesn't give a shit about such attacks on consulates. ALL that matters to them is how they can use it to their political advantage.
The ambassador was an assigned civilian with the promise of government protection. That protection failed. Why?That's a pretty stupid line of defense if you're trying to say the life of one ambassador is more valuable than 60 non-ambassadors. There were even diplomats among those 60, though not any ambassadors. There were no ambassadors killed due to Whitewater yet the right opened several investigations into that as well. Meanwhile, 10 attacks on U.S. consulates. 60 people killed. 0 investigations by the right.How many ambassadors were killed during this time.......hmmmmmm?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
He held no office nor had any say. he is NOT relevant to the issue. HER actions HER works HER time in leadership.Of course Bush is relevant. Again, the right is saying Hillary is incompetent to be president because of Benghazi; meanwhile, we had a dozen Benghazi's while Bush was president and many of the same people insisting Hillary isn't qualified because of Benghazi didn't think a bunch of Benghazi's, plus 9.11, disqualified Bush from running again in 2004.BUSH was NOT in office during that attack. NOR in ANY government office during THAT attack. He IS NOT relevant to HER ACTIONS.Again, I didn't inject OBL into this thread. Someone else did. I merely replied to their claim that Clinton was offered OBL (which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission pointed out there was no evidence to support such a claim).When "THEY" bring up Benghazi it's about how SHE handled it. YOUR argument about OBL has NOTHING to do with the way SHE handled Benghazi.I didn't bring up bin Laden. Clementine did in post #231.Sorry....OBL. You are STILL of topic though. We are talking about Hillary and the FACT she is to damn old. NOW her FAILURES in government DO show that BUT your off topic praise singing for OBL and his works are not relevant.
Now if you want to argue that her being senile did NOT play a role fine. But the subject IS Hillary.
As far as being off topic, TFB if you don't like conservative hypocrisy thrown in your face when rightwingers bring up Benghazi.
And it's perfectly reasonable to counter Hillary's mistakes regarding Benghazi with Bush's over terrorist attacks on his watch. Conservatives are trying desperately to establish an aura of incompetence surrounding Hillary so that the electorate will be less likely to vote for her. But that same aura of incompetence didn't prevent the right from re-electing Bush, despite fuckups far beyond anything you imagine Hillary has done.
And truth be told, the right doesn't give two shits about Stevens' death or the other 3 Americans. They are using their deaths as a political tool with the hopes it will help them defeat Hillary. You know this because there have been 9 (so far) investigations into Benghazi. Meanwhile, there were zero investigations into any one of the dozen or so consulate/embassy attacks while Bush was president.
The right clearly doesn't give a shit about such attacks on consulates. ALL that matters to them is how they can use it to their political advantage.
Hell, Bush couldn't be more relevant to this discussion.
Bush held office when there were other attacks on consulates and embassies and other diplomats who were also granted that same promise of protection.He held no office nor had any say. he is NOT relevant to the issue. HER actions HER works HER time in leadership.Of course Bush is relevant. Again, the right is saying Hillary is incompetent to be president because of Benghazi; meanwhile, we had a dozen Benghazi's while Bush was president and many of the same people insisting Hillary isn't qualified because of Benghazi didn't think a bunch of Benghazi's, plus 9.11, disqualified Bush from running again in 2004.BUSH was NOT in office during that attack. NOR in ANY government office during THAT attack. He IS NOT relevant to HER ACTIONS.Again, I didn't inject OBL into this thread. Someone else did. I merely replied to their claim that Clinton was offered OBL (which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission pointed out there was no evidence to support such a claim).When "THEY" bring up Benghazi it's about how SHE handled it. YOUR argument about OBL has NOTHING to do with the way SHE handled Benghazi.I didn't bring up bin Laden. Clementine did in post #231.
As far as being off topic, TFB if you don't like conservative hypocrisy thrown in your face when rightwingers bring up Benghazi.
And it's perfectly reasonable to counter Hillary's mistakes regarding Benghazi with Bush's over terrorist attacks on his watch. Conservatives are trying desperately to establish an aura of incompetence surrounding Hillary so that the electorate will be less likely to vote for her. But that same aura of incompetence didn't prevent the right from re-electing Bush, despite fuckups far beyond anything you imagine Hillary has done.
And truth be told, the right doesn't give two shits about Stevens' death or the other 3 Americans. They are using their deaths as a political tool with the hopes it will help them defeat Hillary. You know this because there have been 9 (so far) investigations into Benghazi. Meanwhile, there were zero investigations into any one of the dozen or so consulate/embassy attacks while Bush was president.
The right clearly doesn't give a shit about such attacks on consulates. ALL that matters to them is how they can use it to their political advantage.
Hell, Bush couldn't be more relevant to this discussion.
Now you try to bring Bush in because he WAS president at the time of an attack. Argument STILL fails BECAUSE you are asking to compare a STANDING president to a "runner". Apple vs Orange.Bush held office when there were other attacks on consulates and embassies and other diplomats who were also granted that same promise of protection.He held no office nor had any say. he is NOT relevant to the issue. HER actions HER works HER time in leadership.Of course Bush is relevant. Again, the right is saying Hillary is incompetent to be president because of Benghazi; meanwhile, we had a dozen Benghazi's while Bush was president and many of the same people insisting Hillary isn't qualified because of Benghazi didn't think a bunch of Benghazi's, plus 9.11, disqualified Bush from running again in 2004.BUSH was NOT in office during that attack. NOR in ANY government office during THAT attack. He IS NOT relevant to HER ACTIONS.Again, I didn't inject OBL into this thread. Someone else did. I merely replied to their claim that Clinton was offered OBL (which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission pointed out there was no evidence to support such a claim).When "THEY" bring up Benghazi it's about how SHE handled it. YOUR argument about OBL has NOTHING to do with the way SHE handled Benghazi.
And it's perfectly reasonable to counter Hillary's mistakes regarding Benghazi with Bush's over terrorist attacks on his watch. Conservatives are trying desperately to establish an aura of incompetence surrounding Hillary so that the electorate will be less likely to vote for her. But that same aura of incompetence didn't prevent the right from re-electing Bush, despite fuckups far beyond anything you imagine Hillary has done.
And truth be told, the right doesn't give two shits about Stevens' death or the other 3 Americans. They are using their deaths as a political tool with the hopes it will help them defeat Hillary. You know this because there have been 9 (so far) investigations into Benghazi. Meanwhile, there were zero investigations into any one of the dozen or so consulate/embassy attacks while Bush was president.
The right clearly doesn't give a shit about such attacks on consulates. ALL that matters to them is how they can use it to their political advantage.
Hell, Bush couldn't be more relevant to this discussion.
The right saw fit to turn the other cheek following 9.11 and every attack on U.S. consulates and re-elect Bush.
If you want to render Bush irrelevant to this discussion, you'll need a better reason for why Bush was still qualified to run for office following the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. in our history which resulted in 3000 dead, but Hillary is not qualified following an attack overseas which resulted in 4 dead...
Umm ... Bush wasn't a "runner" in 2004 following 9.11 and many of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies???Now you try to bring Bush in because he WAS president at the time of an attack. Argument STILL fails BECAUSE you are asking to compare a STANDING president to a "runner". Apple vs Orange.Bush held office when there were other attacks on consulates and embassies and other diplomats who were also granted that same promise of protection.He held no office nor had any say. he is NOT relevant to the issue. HER actions HER works HER time in leadership.Of course Bush is relevant. Again, the right is saying Hillary is incompetent to be president because of Benghazi; meanwhile, we had a dozen Benghazi's while Bush was president and many of the same people insisting Hillary isn't qualified because of Benghazi didn't think a bunch of Benghazi's, plus 9.11, disqualified Bush from running again in 2004.BUSH was NOT in office during that attack. NOR in ANY government office during THAT attack. He IS NOT relevant to HER ACTIONS.Again, I didn't inject OBL into this thread. Someone else did. I merely replied to their claim that Clinton was offered OBL (which the Republican-led 9.11 Commission pointed out there was no evidence to support such a claim).
And it's perfectly reasonable to counter Hillary's mistakes regarding Benghazi with Bush's over terrorist attacks on his watch. Conservatives are trying desperately to establish an aura of incompetence surrounding Hillary so that the electorate will be less likely to vote for her. But that same aura of incompetence didn't prevent the right from re-electing Bush, despite fuckups far beyond anything you imagine Hillary has done.
And truth be told, the right doesn't give two shits about Stevens' death or the other 3 Americans. They are using their deaths as a political tool with the hopes it will help them defeat Hillary. You know this because there have been 9 (so far) investigations into Benghazi. Meanwhile, there were zero investigations into any one of the dozen or so consulate/embassy attacks while Bush was president.
The right clearly doesn't give a shit about such attacks on consulates. ALL that matters to them is how they can use it to their political advantage.
Hell, Bush couldn't be more relevant to this discussion.
The right saw fit to turn the other cheek following 9.11 and every attack on U.S. consulates and re-elect Bush.
If you want to render Bush irrelevant to this discussion, you'll need a better reason for why Bush was still qualified to run for office following the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. in our history which resulted in 3000 dead, but Hillary is not qualified following an attack overseas which resulted in 4 dead...
To compare a standing president to another IS fair but not a standing to a runner. If you want to compare George to Bill at least that's even BUT they BOTH have zero to do with HER and HER actions.Umm ... Bush wasn't a "runner" in 2004 following 9.11 and many of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies???Now you try to bring Bush in because he WAS president at the time of an attack. Argument STILL fails BECAUSE you are asking to compare a STANDING president to a "runner". Apple vs Orange.Bush held office when there were other attacks on consulates and embassies and other diplomats who were also granted that same promise of protection.He held no office nor had any say. he is NOT relevant to the issue. HER actions HER works HER time in leadership.Of course Bush is relevant. Again, the right is saying Hillary is incompetent to be president because of Benghazi; meanwhile, we had a dozen Benghazi's while Bush was president and many of the same people insisting Hillary isn't qualified because of Benghazi didn't think a bunch of Benghazi's, plus 9.11, disqualified Bush from running again in 2004.BUSH was NOT in office during that attack. NOR in ANY government office during THAT attack. He IS NOT relevant to HER ACTIONS.
Hell, Bush couldn't be more relevant to this discussion.
The right saw fit to turn the other cheek following 9.11 and every attack on U.S. consulates and re-elect Bush.
If you want to render Bush irrelevant to this discussion, you'll need a better reason for why Bush was still qualified to run for office following the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. in our history which resulted in 3000 dead, but Hillary is not qualified following an attack overseas which resulted in 4 dead...
Is that the best defense you can muster?
They're just afraid of her, they know she will do a great job. Rs always need somebody to hate.Upon entering the office of the President of the United State, Ronald Reagan was 69 years, 349 days old (just one month shy of his 70th birthday), then served 2,922 days as our president and then enjoyed a retirement of 5,615 days (more than double his 2-terms in office) before unfortunately dying in 2004.
He looked pretty damned old at 69 and yet, he was voted in to office. He also had a slew of medical problems, but that didn't keep him from getting elected.
When Hillary is sworn in, she have just turned 69 after the election of 2016, so she will be almost a year younger than Reagan was.
Righties are really, really, really, REALLY bad at math and it comes back to bite them in the ass every time.
THREAD FAIL.
she will do a great job
We're comparing two people running for president and the fuckups the right ignored to elect Bush in 2004 compared to what they accuse Hillary of fucking up. I've yet to see a lucid argument for why it was perfectly ok to elect Bush as president in 2004 after failing to protect America on 9.11 which led to 3,000 deaths but not ok to elect Hillary as president for failing to protect a consulate overseas which led to 4 deaths.To compare a standing president to another IS fair but not a standing to a runner. If you want to compare George to Bill at least that's even BUT they BOTH have zero to do with HER and HER actions.Umm ... Bush wasn't a "runner" in 2004 following 9.11 and many of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies???Now you try to bring Bush in because he WAS president at the time of an attack. Argument STILL fails BECAUSE you are asking to compare a STANDING president to a "runner". Apple vs Orange.Bush held office when there were other attacks on consulates and embassies and other diplomats who were also granted that same promise of protection.He held no office nor had any say. he is NOT relevant to the issue. HER actions HER works HER time in leadership.Of course Bush is relevant. Again, the right is saying Hillary is incompetent to be president because of Benghazi; meanwhile, we had a dozen Benghazi's while Bush was president and many of the same people insisting Hillary isn't qualified because of Benghazi didn't think a bunch of Benghazi's, plus 9.11, disqualified Bush from running again in 2004.
Hell, Bush couldn't be more relevant to this discussion.
The right saw fit to turn the other cheek following 9.11 and every attack on U.S. consulates and re-elect Bush.
If you want to render Bush irrelevant to this discussion, you'll need a better reason for why Bush was still qualified to run for office following the worst terrorist attack in the U.S. in our history which resulted in 3000 dead, but Hillary is not qualified following an attack overseas which resulted in 4 dead...
Is that the best defense you can muster?
Who is OSB?You WERE talking about OSB. What's the matter? FACTS scare you?And the terror attacks didn't just end for us on 9.11 ...
January 22, 2002: US consulate at Kolkata, 5 Killed
June 14, 2002: US Consulate at Karachi, 12 Killed
February 28, 2003: US Embassy at Islamabad, 2 Killed
June 30, 2004: US Embassy at Tashkent, 2 Killed
December 6, 2004: US Compound at Saudi Arabia, 9 Killed
March 2, 2006: US Consulate in Karachi, 2 Killed
September 12, 2006: US Embassy at Syria, 4 Killed
March 18, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 2 Killed
July 9, 2008: US Consulate at Istanbul, 6 Killed
September 17, 2008 US Embassy at Yemen, 16 Killed
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those? They're up to something like 9 over Benghazi.
What a pity America's rightwing decided to politicize the deaths of those 4 Americans.
Why do you think my arguments are limited to one person?
Do you want to answer the question posed or do you want to avoid it by stating I was talking about OSB, whomever that is?
How many investigations did Republicans start over any of those attacks on U.S. consulates and embassies? 10 attacks. 60 people killed. How many investigations?
Because Hillary is connected to Benghazi, 1 attack, 4 people killed, Republicans are up to 9 investigations. And don't be surprised if they start up more now that she's officially running for president.
