^

THIS.

 

And , to add to that, if Reagan was alive today and in his prime, he would be thought of about as well as Jeb. He would get about 10% of the Republican vote in today's crazy Republican party. Reagan would be way too moderate.

 

I'm getting a little lost with the revisionist history on Reagan. Reagan was disliked by the Dems and the establishment Repubs, much like Carson and Trump today. Jeb is establishment, and not in the same stratosphere with Reagan.

I'm getting a little lost with the revisionist history on Reagan. Reagan was disliked by the Dems and the establishment Repubs, much like Carson and Trump today. Jeb is establishment, and not in the same stratosphere with Reagan.

 

Partially because he was once a Democrat.

 

The argument that he wouldn't have much support in today's Grand Old Party holds water. Too centrist.

Papa , just to put supporters of Hillary on the record . Either you think she lied and it led you to vote for someone else , or she lied and you don't care , or you think she didnt lie . The last one doesnt really match any reality . Trying to figure out how people can support someone who lied to the parents of the dead state dept employees.

I don't call myself a Hillary supporter but with the other options that's the lever I will pull. With that said this controversy is the product of social media, instant news, and the GOP trying to slow the Hillary machine (which puts them in the wrong too).

 

Could she have done anything to save the victims or was she derelict of her duties? No.

That' s all I need to know.

 

So you are OK with her being proven a liar by her own emails?

I belittled you ? After you called me out for ' searching for truth on an internet chit chat board " ? But it was me that belittled you ? No one has to agree with me . I think she lied . IF YOU DONT THINK SHE LIED QUIT BEATING AROUND THE FREAKING BUSH AND GROW A PAIR AND SAY SO -- Then I'll belittle you . In my best " you cant handle the truth scream" .

 

This will NEVER happen. The Left doesn't have it in them to admit that she lied.

I'm not a Clinton supporter but I've largely been in the camp that "Benghazi" is a scandal in search of evidence.

 

It was unquestionably a tragedy and it happened on the watch of the incumbent two months before the election. I think a lot of people thought it was the golden ticket to beating Obama that November. The problem was finding wrongdoing on the part of the administration to take it from an American tragedy to something criminal. And EVERYTHING was flung at the wall to see what would stick. We had that debate ad nauseum on here. I'm still confused about what it is that we are supposed to be up in arms about. It changes monthly.

 

I have no doubt the Gowdy committee was created and maintained this long precisely to make some bad press for Clinton when she ran for president. Frankly, I'm fine with that. Our government is predicated on the idea that electoral ambitions will counter others' ambitions. The problem for the Republicans is that the 11-hour hearing mostly backfired. I had it on all day on a separate screen and the 11-hours weren't warranted. They could've easily asked what little they did in two. So, I think most people rightly concluded that the hearing wasn't meant to investigate but to be an "event." One that would drag into primetime, lead to Clinton wearing down and looking bad, or just be enough to knock the shine off of her candidacy.

 

At any rate, did she lie? I don't know. I don't know what she thought or believed or what she even said to the families. I also don't believe the issue with the video and violence at other American embassies is mutually exclusive with the attack being conducted by an organized jihadist group. Even in the months after the attack journalists were reporting that the groups claiming responsibility were citing the video as the basis of their anger and even the people who have been taken into custody have cited the video as the impetus for the attack. This was and is my own view; I think I'm relatively informed on Middle Eastern politics and followed the protests at other embassies fairly closely and followed the coverage of the attack in Benghazi in its wake. So, I don't think that Clinton's email to her daughter about an "al-Qaeda like group" is the smoking gun that she knowingly lied.

 

But, like others have said she's a politician, so I don't automatically believe she is beyond reproach either. My hunch is that the administration wasn't certain about what happened and was also trying to spin and coordinate their PR response on it, but that doesn't match the accusations of cover-ups and treasonous criminality Republicans have alleged for three years.

Partially because he was once a Democrat.

 

The argument that he wouldn't have much support in today's Grand Old Party holds water. Too centrist.

You are correct, just as Carson and Trump are not well liked by the establishment Repubs.

Habib -- I'll link what exactly was said a little later .

This will NEVER happen. The Left doesn't have it in them to admit that she lied.

 

And the Right doesn't have the decency to admit that these "investigations" have come to end, and that their continued existence is solely to gain political advantage. Using the memory of those killed for political gain is just as distasteful as the claim that Clinton lied to the parents.

 

Like I said before, I don't know if she lied or not. You think she did, prove it. You will be a millionaire on tour with fox news if you can.

 

I can also say that Clinton accepted some responsibility for the safety measures that were not taken at the embassy. That makes her basically the only person on the face of the planet to willingly accept any responsibility. Not the prior administration that allowed embassy attacks without response. Not the lawmakers in congress who failed to give sufficient funds to have security. No one took any responsibility but her.

And the Right doesn't have the decency to admit that these "investigations" have come to end, and that their continued existence is solely to gain political advantage. Using the memory of those killed for political gain is just as distasteful as the claim that Clinton lied to the parents.

 

Like I said before, I don't know if she lied or not. You think she did, prove it. You will be a millionaire on tour with fox news if you can.

 

I can also say that Clinton accepted some responsibility for the safety measures that were not taken at the embassy. That makes her basically the only person on the face of the planet to willingly accept any responsibility. Not the prior administration that allowed embassy attacks without response. Not the lawmakers in congress who failed to give sufficient funds to have security. No one took any responsibility but her.

 

I guess you missed the emails that showed she told her daughter, the Egyptian and Libyan leaders that she knew it was not a protest but a coordinated attack. Then she goes on TV claiming it was a protest due to a video. Those were HER emails.

 

There are many on the Left that just refuse to admit the truth. If you won't believe her own admissions in emails there is no further proof anyone can present that will convince you.

She LIED folks...there is no doubt about it. Obama LIED. Susan Rice LIED. They all knew it had nothing to do with a video and lied about it because an election was less than two months away and admitting it was a terrorist attack would not support the narrative that Obama had control over terrorism.

 

When your answer to the question is "I'm not sure" or "the R's do it too", you are basically admitting she lied and you will overlook it because you like her more than the others. But admit she not only lied but that she BLATANTLY LIED to dead people's family members.