US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Dowly]

I take that as a "no" then.

EDIT: Why wouldn't you provide sources for that? If it is so sure a situation there should be plenty to provide, right? Yet you don't.

[vienna]

Here's the source:

https://thinkprogress.org/proof-that...-74bb343f7292/


Note four times as many Committees investigated Benghazi than investigated 9/11 and there were 45% more hearings on Benghazi than 9/11. Over-investigated, much?...

The above includes Committees and Hearings chaired by GOP Chairmen and having GOP majority membership, and, yet, none of them were able to directly or indirectly place blame on Clinton; also note the above does not include the investigations conducted by other agencies and entities such as the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc., that, likewise, were unable to directly or indirectly place blame on Clinton; yet the Far Right, the Tin-Foil Hat crowd, and the desperate Trumpettes persist in endlessly and needlessly and, at times, at great taxpayer expense, bring up this tired and overly disproved canard. The facts are out there, but, of course, the facts only get in the way of those who can only cling to fantasy in order to shore up their idiocies; maybe they should go back to something 'factual', like Pizzagate...







<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

Note four times as many Committees investigated Benghazi than investigated 9/11 and there were 45% more hearings on Benghazi than 9/11. Over-investigated, much?...

Possible but that doesn't change the findings.

The above includes Committees and Hearings chaired by GOP Chairmen and having GOP majority membership, and, yet, none of them were able to directly or indirectly place blame on Clinton....

That might be true as well but there is plenty of blame to go around.

the report drilled down on new details about how Clinton’s State Department failed to protect the diplomatic outpost in Libya. The report also said that the CIA missed the looming threat despite warnings and wrote faulty intelligence reports after the attack. And GOP staff said their findings indicate that the Defense Department did not meet its response times to deploy military assets to Benghazi and follow-up to ensure Americans were rescued in a timely fashion.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...clinton-224854

yet the Far Right, the Tin-Foil Hat crowd, and the desperate Trumpettes persist in endlessly and needlessly and, at times, at great taxpayer expense, bring up this tired and overly disproved canard. The facts are out there, but, of course, the facts only get in the way of those who can only cling to fantasy in order to shore up their idiocies;

Now why does that sound familiar.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

...

Possible but that doesn't change the findings.

...

So, you're saying you agree with the findings of all those investigation that there is no direct, individual culpability of Clinton? Because, that is substantially and specifically the findings of all those investigations...

Now, if only the Trumpettes would stop trying to flagellate deceased equines and turn the same extreme, obsessive, and persistent scrutiny towards the failings, excesses and criminality of the Trump Administration, perhaps they'd actually find some real, genuine, worrisome and substantial issues to carp about; I know the vast majority of other Americans have...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

Now why does that sound familiar.

Because its been said so often about the Trumpettes and their leaders?....








<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

So, you're saying you agree with the findings of all those investigation that there is no direct, individual culpability of Clinton? Because, that is substantially and specifically the findings of all those investigations...

Other findings of the same investigation..

But the final section of Gowdy’s report does sharply criticize both Clinton’s use of a private email account and what it called the administration’s “shameful” stonewalling of the investigation. The report said the administration’s refusal to turn over all records to the panel made it impossible for committee investigators to say with certainty that they have reviewed all the facts surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, including Ambassador Chris Stevens.

“What may appear at first blush to be a lack of competence on behalf of the State Department now appears fully intentional and coordinated,” according to an exclusive copy of a part of the report that alleges the administration stonewalled Gowdy’s probe. “Delaying the production of documents sought by letter, informal request or subpoena has decided political advantages for those opposing the investigation.”

The report will also detail the Defense Department’s failure to move assets to respond during the attack. The panel found that while President Barack Obama and then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta approved the military to do all that it could just after 8:30 that night, no one was deployed for hours and DOD failed to meet deployment times, according to one committee staffer.

The committee also blasts the State Department’s internal investigation of the attack, known as the Accountability Review Board, for allegedly coordinating with Clinton’s chief of staff, Cheryl Mills. Such reviews are traditionally independent.

The committee spoke to at least one State Department official who said the traditional setup of an ARB was not followed, noting Mills’ involvement.

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...clinton-224854

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Wrong doing, culpability and incompetence are sometimes hard to distinguish. The responsibility ultimately lies with those in charge. There is no doubt that Clinton's role in this was politicized by the GOP during this investigation. That's not a viable excuse. Like so many things with this woman, it's never her fault. I believe that this tragedy and the resulting attempt to distract from the actual events played a roll in Mrs. Clinton's election loss.

Oh and by the way the use of the somewhat derogatory term 'Trumpettes' does not pave the way for good political discussion. I would have thought you would be above that.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Other findings of the same investigation..







https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...clinton-224854

Nothing happens in a vacuum. Wrong doing, culpability and incompetence are sometimes hard to distinguish. The responsibility ultimately lies with those in charge. There is no doubt that Clinton's role in this was politicized by the GOP during this investigation. That's not a viable excuse. Like so many things with this woman, it's never her fault. I believe that this tragedy and the resulting attempt to distract from the actual events played a roll in Mrs. Clinton's election loss.

...

The key in that statement is Clinton lost; its over, the bullet was dodged and, last I looked she isn't sitting in the Oval Office, so what has done or is doing or will be doing really has no relevance to the Trump mess; that is a morass of his own creation and one he will either have to drain or others will be only to glad to do it for him...

Still, Benghazi is old news and is really not going anywhere, which makes it useless to dredge up in a sad, weak attempt to deflect from the real, current, and potential, if not already actual, harm and damage going on now with an out of control and demented administration...

Bottom line, dredging up Benghazi, et al, does not make the Trump administration and its cohorts any less culpable for the many transgressions they have committed. They must stand and be judged on what they have committed and that alone, without resorting to the schoolyard defense of "Well, they did it first!"...

If they are going to talk the talk about law and order and carp about taking responsibility, they are really going to have to walk the walk...

...although, it now seems its going to be more of a 'perp walk'...

Originally Posted by u crank

...

Oh and by the way the use of the somewhat derogatory term 'Trumpettes' does not pave the way for good political discussion. I would have thought you would be above that.

Oh, I am better above that. The use of that particular sobriquet was my modest attempt to counter the idiotic use of terms such as "snowflake", etc. so easily bandied about by the Trump apologists and defenders and just myself having a bit of fun, at their expense; if it irritates or infuriates them, well, that's just a bit of a bonus...








<O>

[Mr Quatro]

Originally Posted by vienna

Still, Benghazi is old news and is really not going anywhere, which makes it useless to dredge up in a sad, weak attempt to deflect from the real, current, and potential, if not already actual, harm and damage going on now with an out of control and demented administration...

Bottom line, dredging up Benghazi, et al, does not make the Trump administration and its cohorts any less culpable for the many transgressions they have committed. They must stand and be judged on what they have committed and that alone, without resorting to the schoolyard defense of "Well, they did it first!"...

<O>

Your talking trash talk about Trump and Russia ... these present day problems including Benghazi are nothing compared to what this 2017/2018 administration will face if Trump attacks NK ... even if we win a war with NK we lose and have to take care of the survivors of NK and SK and maybe even Japan.

If the Trump lovers give up the bottom line is that President Trump can't win a war of hate against him

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

You can start with four:

US Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, USFS officer Sean Smith, CIA contractors Tyrone S. Woods and Glen Doherty.

Still waiting for those sourse... You got them right? Or is this just another drive by August?

[August]

Originally Posted by Dowly

I take that as a "no" then.

EDIT: Why wouldn't you provide sources for that? If it is so sure a situation there should be plenty to provide, right? Yet you don't.

You can take it anyway you like Dowly. I fail to see the value in repeating what has already been discussed at length in this thread. You have a search feature so use it if you are indeed so obtuse.

As far as i'm concerned she is guilty of their deaths, through her arrogance and incompetence if nothing else. I also blame the Democrats for being perfectly willing to ignore and cover for her failings in order to maintain their hold on power.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by August

You can take it anyway you like Dowly. I fail to see the value in repeating what has already been discussed at length in this thread. You have a search feature so use it if you are indeed so obtuse.

As far as i'm concerned she is guilty of their deaths, through her arrogance and incompetence if nothing else. I also blame the Democrats for being perfectly willing to ignore and cover for her failings in order to maintain their hold on power.

I asked you to provide some source for what you said. It should not be so hard. You again fail to do so. That you name names doesn't mean anything, can they be linked to Hillary Clinton?

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

The key in that statement is Clinton lost; its over, the bullet was dodged and, last I looked she isn't sitting in the Oval Office,

Yes that is true. Now if she would just stop talking about it and go away, people would stop talking about her. If you are going to write a book about your tragic election loss and cross the country hawking it you can expect a little attention. History will decide her overall roll in the scheme of things.

Still, Benghazi is old news and is really not going anywhere, which makes it useless to dredge up in a sad, weak attempt to deflect from the real, current, and potential, if not already actual, harm and damage going on now with an out of control and demented administration...

I didn't bring it up. Just commenting on other peoples posts.

Oh, I am better above that. The use of that particular sobriquet was my modest attempt to counter the idiotic use of terms such as "snowflake", etc. so easily bandied about by the Trump apologists and defenders and just myself having a bit of fun, at their expense; if it irritates or infuriates them, well, that's just a bit of a bonus...

I've never used the term "snowflake". And if that's your excuse for childish name calling, so be it.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Yes that is true. Now if she would just stop talking about it and go away, people would stop talking about her. If you are going to write a book about your tragic election loss and cross the country hawking it you can expect a little attention. History will decide her overall roll in the scheme of things.

That's why I choose to ignore her and deal with the current mess; can't go back and undo what's been done. Too bad others just can't seem to dredge her up as a sad, weak attempt at counter argument to real issues. If she were never mentioned again, good or bad, I'd be fine with that...

Originally Posted by u crank

I didn't bring it up. Just commenting on other peoples posts.

Never said you did bring it up and never intended to imply you did. Just commenting on other people's posts...

Originally Posted by u crank

I've never used the term "snowflake". And if that's your excuse for childish name calling, so be it.

Also, I never said you, specifically, used the term "snowflake" at any point, nor did I so imply. You seem to be a bit oversensitive on the term, though. Tell you what, I'll refrain from using the term unless the need arise to counter other childish name calling...

BTW, I don't recall you taking umbrage to "snowflake', etc. Dual standard, maybe...







<O>

[u crank]

Originally Posted by vienna

That's why I choose to ignore her and deal with the current mess; can't go back and undo what's been done. Too bad others just can't seem to dredge her up as a sad, weak attempt at counter argument to real issues. If she were never mentioned again, good or bad, I'd be fine with that...

Although I am not an American I have followed US politics since the Nixon era. It's a fascination you might say. One thing I have noticed is that although an administration might end, it's influence does not. A President might be out of office but his legacy, for better or worse lives on. A perfect example would be Bill Clinton. His name keeps coming up in the present day sexual abuse controversy. It may seem totally unfair to do this but you can't erase history. And so it is with Hillary Clinton. She gets attention because she asks for it. For the life of me I can't figure out why. I think she is trying to rewrite history for her legacy what ever that might be.

Also, I never said you, specifically, used the term "snowflake" at any point, nor did I so imply. You seem to be a bit oversensitive on the term, though.

What I meant is that I don't use any of those terms. It doesn't really bother me, I just don't think it is productive. But I am not offended.

BTW, I don't recall you taking umbrage to "snowflake', etc. Dual standard, maybe...

No one has used that term in a post with me, but yes it is equally .. mmm.. silly. Again I am not offended. I'm a Canadian. You can't insult me. Go ahead try.

[vienna]

Originally Posted by u crank

Although I am not an American I have followed US politics since the Nixon era. It's a fascination you might say. One thing I have noticed is that although an administration might end, it's influence does not. A President might be out of office but his legacy, for better or worse lives on. A perfect example would be Bill Clinton. His name keeps coming up in the present day sexual abuse controversy. It may seem totally unfair to do this but you can't erase history. And so it is with Hillary Clinton. She gets attention because she asks for it. For the life of me I can't figure out why. I think she is trying to rewrite history for her legacy what ever that might be.



What I meant is that I don't use any of those terms. It doesn't really bother me, I just don't think it is productive. But I am not offended.



No one has used that term in a post with me, but yes it is equally .. mmm.. silly. Again I am not offended. I'm a Canadian. You can't insult me. Go ahead try.

I don't have to try: you've already admitted you're a Canadian...

You mentioned Nixon and Presidential legacies; I was very much aware of the whole Nixon debacle since I was 17 years old when he was inaugurated and I was 23 years old when he slunk away from the White House. Without a doubt, Nixon and his legacy has had the most effect and impact on US politics and the election process. Watergate is used as a sort of standard measure to define the scurrilousness of political malfeasance of any party stripe. The severe distrust and disdain of various Presidents since Nixon towards the press, and vice versa, was born out of Nixon's actions as President. The overtly hostile atmosphere in current US politics is a by-product of the Nixon years. Civility in US politics was virtually annihilated after Nixon and seems to be only getting worse. If you really want to measure impact, "Nixon's The One"...












<O>

[em2nought]

Originally Posted by Mr Quatro

Your talking trash talk about Trump and Russia ... these present day problems including Benghazi are nothing compared to what this 2017/2018 administration will face if Trump attacks NK ... even if we win a war with NK we lose and have to take care of the survivors of NK and SK and maybe even Japan.

If the Trump lovers give up the bottom line is that President Trump can't win a war of hate against him

Try to look on the bright side.