After watching several clips and excluding the melt down I call malfeasance, not reading those secuirity cables was the fatal lynch pin.
Billy
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 23, 2013, 09:02:08 PM
After watching several clips and excluding the melt down I call malfeasance, not reading those secuirity cables was the fatal lynch pin.
Billy
I'm interested as to what level of malfeasance you think took place by the Secretary of State. It was absolutely wrongdoing, but would you consider it criminal negligence sort of level, or a conspiracy to commit murder kind of level?
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 23, 2013, 09:02:08 PM
After watching several clips and excluding the melt down I call malfeasance, not reading those secuirity cables was the fatal lynch pin.
Billy
Do we know they were given to her or that she had knowledge of their existence before the event?
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 09:53:28 PM
I'm interested as to what level of malfeasance you think took place by the Secretary of State. It was absolutely wrongdoing, but would you consider it criminal negligence sort of level, or a conspiracy to commit murder kind of level?
You were in the Military you well understand
malfeasance, ala direlection of duty vs negligence... now some underling(s) may be guilty of that
I doubt it was any 'conspiracy', not even Madame LeFarge Le Hillary is THAT malicious.
Quote from: BILLY Defiant on January 23, 2013, 10:10:54 PM
You were in the Military you well understand malfeasance, ala direlection of duty vs negligence... now some underling(s) may be guilty of that
I doubt it was any 'conspiracy', not even Madame LeFarge Le Hillary is THAT malicious.
Well, I wasn't in the military, my boyfriend was. However, I did in fact look up up the definition of the word, understood it as being wrongdoing or misconducts. I was just curious if you thought it was total incompetence, or something she should be arrested for negligence on?
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 10:24:54 PM
Well, I wasn't in the military, my boyfriend was. However, I did in fact look up up the definition of the word, understood it as being wrongdoing or misconducts. I was just curious if you thought it was total incompetence, or something she should be arrested for negligence on?
malfeasance is technically a failure to perform your appointed/sworn duty. After 4 years she should understand the need to read those cables aprticularly security related. Negligence would be some one under her not doing follow up directly after delivering an intelligence report and not hearing back from the chief decision maker in so vital an issue.
You can't arrest somebody with diplomatic immunity. I suppose the vicitim families could hold the State Dept responsible for damages due to overall gross negligence and might even get away with going after Hillary's deep pockets personally.... but good luck with that.
Sorry that I had to be away from the forum so long. We've had our yearly physicals and it took some time but well worth the effort as we both got good reports. My cancer has not come back on me after one year. Four years to go.
According to the news clip i saw on the news Wednesday, Hillary was banging on the table in front of her and near yelling at McCain and saying that alot of time had passed and what did it matter about (I think) whether the reports came in and that she had not seen any of them and further that the Obama administration had nothing to do with any conspiracy or cover up. I could have swallowed my false teeth. It is total BS. I missed most of the 5 hour travesty but from what I have heard, Hillary didn't surprise me with her answers. I would like for someone to tell me if she was asked about the speech that she and Obama gave about the riot and subsequent killing of 4 Americans. Was she asked about the film that she and Obama claimed started the whole mess? How did they get this information? Lord, I wish I hadn't missed it. Hillary needs to get slap out of politics. She has been reduced to what I refer to as a lackey. I'm surprised that Obama doesn't have her polishing his shoes or doing the family's laundry.
Quote from: EHMakeup on January 23, 2013, 10:24:54 PM
Well, I wasn't in the military, my boyfriend was. However, I did in fact look up up the definition of the word, understood it as being wrongdoing or misconducts. I was just curious if you thought it was total incompetence, or something she should be arrested for negligence on?
Actually Billy's definition is correect.
Wrongful conduct by a public official.
Here's my take:
By ruling with an iron fist, and keeping radical islamists in check, Gaddafi had become an indirect ally of the US, (in the war on terrorism); same with Mubarak in Egypt.
Obama illegally entered a civil war in Libya, backed the terrorists, and it resulted in the destruction of the Gaddafi regime, as well as his death. So much for stability.
In an effort to extend an olive branch to his new radical islamic buddies, (and to try to show that he trusted them), a minimal security detail was assigned to Benghazi, and it was comprised mostly of locals.
Despite repeated warnings of an upcoming attack on the embassy, it was determined that ramping up security personnel, or worse, risking an armed conflict, was not worth the risk to Obama's reelection campaign. It would have put a serious damper on public opinion of his decision making skills. Therefore, the embassy staff was left as sitting ducks.
The next phase was finding an explanation, (beforehand), for the impending attack on 9-11.............Eureka! Staff member finds an anti-islamic youtube video. Perfect!
In typical Obama regime fashion; after the attack, (and with the help of the media), the youtube message was drummed into our heads, 24/7, for 2 solid weeks. When that narrative began to be questioned, it was hushed up, and we were told that everything was being thoroughly investigated.
Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track.
The really disgusting part..... They sat in Washington and watched the entire thing unfold in real time; telling reinforcements to stand down. To protect the campaign, they became complicit in murder.
End of story.
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:17:51 AM
Here's my take:
By ruling with an iron fist, and keeping radical islamists in check, Gaddafi had become an indirect ally of the US, (in the war on terrorism); same with Mubarak in Egypt.
Obama illegally entered a civil war in Libya, backed the terrorists, and it resulted in the destruction of the Gaddafi regime, as well as his death. So much for stability.
In an effort to extend an olive branch to his new radical islamic buddies, (and to try to show that he trusted them), a minimal security detail was assigned to Benghazi, and it was comprised mostly of locals.
Despite repeated warnings of an upcoming attack on the embassy, it was determined that ramping up security personnel, or worse, risking an armed conflict, was not worth the risk to Obama's reelection campaign. It would have put a serious damper on public opinion of his decision making skills. Therefore, the embassy staff was left as sitting ducks.
The next phase was finding an explanation, (beforehand), for the impending attack on 9-11.............Eureka! Staff member finds an anti-islamic youtube video. Perfect!
In typical Obama regime fashion; after the attack, (and with the help of the media), the youtube message was drummed into our heads, 24/7, for 2 solid weeks. When that narrative began to be questioned, it was hushed up, and we were told that everything was being thoroughly investigated.
Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track.
End of story.
"Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track."
And that is exactly what this was/is all about to the Dems. The loss of 4 lives was a secondary inconvenience. Anyone who thinks Shrillary wasn't shedding crocodile tears is sadly mistaken.
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 06:20:43 AM
"Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track."
And that is exactly what this was/is all about to the Dems. The loss of 4 lives was a secondary inconvenience. Anyone who thinks Shrillary wasn't shedding crocodile tears is sadly mistaken.
Hillary's indignation was the same defense mechanism that Bill used when he was lying about the Lewinski thing.
In their minds, the loss of those four lives was a necessary
evil speed bump in the ongoing battle for the "greater good": which was the reelection of Obama, and democrat control of the white house.
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 06:20:43 AM
"Long story short: Our Libyan embassy personnel were given up as sacrificial lambs to keep Obama's reelection campaign on track."
And that is exactly what this was/is all about to the Dems. The loss of 4 lives was a secondary inconvenience. Anyone who thinks Shrillary wasn't shedding crocodile tears is sadly mistaken.
Even a blind child can see it if they want to, but we know how liberals view everything, with an emotional bent.
I have no idea how to get through the emotional barrier that a lib keeps up, only the Dim party has a lock on that, they play the emotion card on a daily basis.
Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2013, 06:35:21 AM
Even a blind child can see it if they want to, but we know how liberals view everything, with an emotional bent.
I have no idea how to get through the emotional barrier that a lib keeps up, only the Dim party has a lock on that, they play the emotion card on a daily basis.
If the republicans would get to work on exposing the complete moral bankruptcy of this administration, there are plenty of things that the entire
country should be getting emotional about. :angry:
Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2013, 06:35:21 AM
Even a blind child can see it if they want to, but we know how liberals view everything, with an emotional bent.
I have no idea how to get through the emotional barrier that a lib keeps up, only the Dim party has a lock on that, they play the emotion card on a daily basis.
What's that saying? Something like, "there are none so blind as those who refuse to see"
Hence the current so called moderate Dem who let his or her party be hijacked by the Libs and Progressives.
I have a close friend who is a DEM and refuses to vote anything but Dem no matter how many facts you throw at him.
His own wife calls him Jimmy Hoffa since he won't let her buy anything but a Ford. He doesn't even realize that Toyota is more of an American car than Ford is. Ironic in a way since his own union, Local 3 screwed him so much that he retired early and now works for himself.
He's the perfect example of..."if only he would think outside the box".
This may sound extreme but I'm ready to dump him as a friend. If he says, "we won get used to it" one more time after handing him facts for over an hour when we debate...he's gone.
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 06:40:21 AM
If the republicans would get to work on exposing the complete moral bankruptcy of this administration, there are plenty of things that the entire country should be getting emotional about. :angry:
God knows I hate it, but maybe we need to stoop as low as the Dims and start playing the emotion card, obviously it works on the ignorant, look at Capt. Oblivious, he thinks the 2nd is outdated.
Only an emotional fool could come to that conclusion.
The negligence and malfeasance were on the part of the questioners.
Dems & leftists we knew itwas coming.
The fact that all the GOP reps aided in the ass-kissing and cover up of any real questioning....that's the shocking and disgusting part.
Apparently this was every politician in the room vs. the citizens who expect truth and lawfulness.
A huge step back for the GOP honesty and character that we're chasing.
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 07:21:26 AM
The negligence and malfeasance were on the part of the questioners.
Dems & leftists we knew it was coming.
The fact that all the GOP reps aided in the ass-kissing and cover up of any real questioning....that's the shocking and disgusting part.
Apparently this was every politician in the room vs. the citizens who expect truth and lawfulness.
A huge step back for the GOP honesty and character that we're chasing.
I can't help but wonder if, that the truth is so horrible, that the republicans are scared to even publicly pursue it.
Look at it this way; if the republicans were to lay out a scenario like I did...........not only would no one believe that such a cold hearted thing would be possible, but the republicans would be demonized by even suggesting it. I can see the news flashes now.
This is why republicans have got to stop being so scared of their shadows.
Bush was accused of being a murderer, daily; as was Romney.
If democrats can lie about murder, republicans should have the balls to expose it when it's true. :mad:
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 07:39:56 AM
This is why republicans have got to stop being so scared of their shadows.
Bush was accused of being a murderer, daily; as was Romney.
If democrats can lie about murder, republicans should have the balls to expose it when it's true. :mad:
The problem is the media.
Rand Paul ripped her a new one...what did the media report...Hillary's little rant and her crocodile tears.
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 07:43:11 AM
The problem is the media.
Rand Paul ripped her a new one...what did the media report...Hillary's little rant and her crocodile tears.
Right. Good for Paul. They all should have been going after her.
Fast and furious was another missed opportunity. A president cannot use executive privilege to cover up something that's illegal!!!
If they could, Nixon would have done it. Case closed.
The pubs are blowing it.
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 07:51:49 AM
Right. Good for Paul. They all should have been going after her.
Fast and furious was another missed opportunity. A president cannot use executive privilege to cover up something that's illegal!!!
If they could, Nixon would have done it. Case closed.
The pubs are blowing it.
For the most part that's true. But without "honest air time" in the MSM the message of those that try...just doesn't reach the masses.
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 07:51:49 AM
Right. Good for Paul. They all should have been going after her.
Fast and furious was another missed opportunity. A president cannot use executive privilege to cover up something that's illegal!!!
If they could, Nixon would have done it. Case closed.
The pubs are blowing it.
I really would like to call or email my congressman and just ask What in the Hell are you guys doing. Why didn't they get together before hand and just say you ask this and the next guy ask something else or the the same thing until we get an answer. She talked for 4.5 hours and didn't say a word yesterday.
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 07:53:19 AM
For the most part that's true. But without "honest air time" in the MSM the message of those that try...just doesn't reach the masses.
That's why the cons have to get together and get on the same page with their message and just hammer it every time they get a chance, eventually maybe someone will hear it. It's like the right palm has no idea what the left one is doing!
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 07:53:19 AM
For the most part that's true. But without "honest air time" in the MSM the message of those that try...just doesn't reach the masses.
Well then fine. If the MSM is spinning the message into, "the republicans are being mean", so be it. At least it's being heard.
The pubs can do the same thing we do on here...........tell them to prove that they are right and the pubs are wrong. They can't!!
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 08:05:00 AM
Well then fine. If the MSM is spinning the message into, "the republicans are being mean", so be it. At least it's being heard.
The pubs can do the same thing we do on here...........tell them to prove that they are right and the pubs are wrong. They can't!!
But that's the problem. How do you get that message out if the MSM refuses to cover it? Putting a Republican/Conservative on a Sunday morning talk show surrounded by 3 salivating Dems is a no win situation.
Even when the meassage is clear, the spin machine goes into high gear. Heck even the hosts are spinmeisters...Gregory, Schieffer...
There's one Conservative outlet...FOX
The other side of the aisle has ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSLSD, PBS.
That's pretty big odds to overcome.
Also take yesterday's hearings. If I'm not mistaken only FOX covered them live...maybe CNN.
Not CBS, NBC, or ABC. Why? They weren't sure how it would play out for Hillary so better to report on it later when they can spin what happened.
I'll bet you didn't see the Rand Paul exchange on the MSM networks and if you did, it was likey aired once with lots of refutation/spin along with it.
I don't have the numbers but I'd bet this got very little air play in the MSM
http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-to-hillary-clinton-if-i-were-president-i-would-have-relieved-you-of-your-post-video/ (http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/rand-paul-to-hillary-clinton-if-i-were-president-i-would-have-relieved-you-of-your-post-video/)
This is as of 11:33 NYC time. It may change by the time some view this
Fox saying Hillary's answers don't add up and going into why:
http://www.foxnews.com/ (http://www.foxnews.com/)
Barely a trace of the hearings mentioned on CNN. It's as if they didn't happen. Left hand side, one buried story and a video on a "Firey Hillary" No Rand Paul rebuking her.
http://www.cnn.com/ (http://www.cnn.com/)
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 08:34:54 AM
This is as of 11:33 NYC time. It may change by the time some view this
Fox saying Hillary's answers don't add up and going into why:
http://www.foxnews.com/ (http://www.foxnews.com/)
Barely a trace of the hearings mentioned on CNN. It's as if they didn't happen. Left hand side, one buried story and a video on a "Firey Hillary" No Rand Paul rebuking her.
http://www.cnn.com/ (http://www.cnn.com/)
The only news I ever watch on TV is my local NBC station; and that's for the weather.
There are ways around a biased media. The republicans, (if they even care), need to start using other outlets. Websites, facebook, twitter, talk radio.................
If they wait to be heard on ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS or any of the other liberal outlets; it ain't gonna happen.
For cryin' out loud! Obama is still on the campaign trail, taking donations, and has a site that is updated daily.
http://www.barackobama.com/ (http://www.barackobama.com/)
Where is the republican equivalent?
"If they wait to be heard on ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS or any of the other liberal outlets; it ain't gonna happen."
And thereby the biggest outlets are closed to them. What we need is an honest media without an agenda and that just isn't going to happen.
They need to concentrate on getting their base together and running candidates that appeal to the masses.
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 11:51:53 AM
"If they wait to be heard on ABC, CNN, NBC, CBS or any of the other liberal outlets; it ain't gonna happen."
And thereby the biggest outlets are closed to them. What we need is an honest media without an agenda and that just isn't going to happen.
They need to concentrate on getting their base together and running candidates that appeal to the masses.
They've been trying that, and we end up with lib republicans. The masses have to be shown the truth..........somehow. :confused:
Quote from: kramarat on January 24, 2013, 12:14:38 PM
They've been trying that, and we end up with lib republicans. The masses have to be shown the truth..........somehow. :confused:
The base of the GOP is still Conservative but Romney was "Conservative light". McCain was just a lousy candidate.
Quote from: Turks on January 24, 2013, 12:31:16 PM
The base of the GOP is still Conservative but Romney was "Conservative light". McCain was just a lousy candidate.
Funny isn't it, all his years of service he voted primarily conservative record every time, but as soon as he hit the campaign trail, he turned into a Raving RINO. :confused:
Quote from: Solar on January 24, 2013, 01:28:49 PM
Funny isn't it, all his years of service he voted primarily conservative record every time, but as soon as he hit the campaign trail, he turned into a Raving RINO. :confused:
When will they learn they cannot out dem the dems?
Quote from: supsalemgr on January 24, 2013, 02:23:55 PM
When will they learn they cannot out dem the dems?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Sitting on the fence, only brings stones from both sides.
Pick a side and stick with it.
While we complian about the candidates that we put out there, we should also be looking at how we let the dems, MSM, and guys like Rove engineer them into being the candidate. Both McCain and Romney were maneuvered in there largely because they were the ones the dems wanted, either beatable or who they had the best material against.
Likewise how the GOP lets rabid liberals moderate the debates, on rabidly liberal outlets, often at rabidly liberal sites.
Who the hell continues to be THAT stupid ? Are they actually afraid that they'll be called "mean spirited" if they demand equal accomodations and conditions ?
Quote from: AndyJackson on January 24, 2013, 07:21:26 AM
The negligence and malfeasance were on the part of the questioners.
Dems & leftists we knew itwas coming.
The fact that all the GOP reps aided in the ass-kissing and cover up of any real questioning....that's the shocking and disgusting part.
Apparently this was every politician in the room vs. the citizens who expect truth and lawfulness.
A huge step back for the GOP honesty and character that we're chasing.
Wrong.
First off, while their line of questioning could have been better, Hillary's scream fest and
admissions did their job for them.
I guarentee you before the whole thing is over and more information comes out Madame Le Farge's disgusting performance "What does it matter" will indeed come back to haunt her.
Billy
Cowardice and self preservation....