Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Praise

TheRUMP admits HC can do anything he can

Sep 9, 2016 8:23PM PDT

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Sounds like he's just echoing the sentiments of many
Sep 10, 2016 2:07AM PDT

who watched her husband escape being evicted from the White House and become more popular than ever. Bill Clinton will forever change the moral landscape in politics and Hillary's being able to turn a severe security breach into a "who cares?" posture (...after all, she was just so dedicated that she was taking work home with her...) will further change that landscape in the area of personal ethics. While DT's statement was, in fact, a bit of hyperbole, it's underlying message rings with plenty of truth, IMO.

- Collapse -
She didn't have to pull the trigger
Sep 10, 2016 3:02AM PDT

All she had to do was ignore requests for more security or pull her friend out of Libya like other countries did........and sit back and watch the murders taking place in real time. She's already gotten away with murder.

- Collapse -
RE:She's already gotten away with murder.
Sep 10, 2016 3:24AM PDT

So you want to replace her with someone else that would also "get away with murder"?

Yet when she "gets away with murder" it's a point against her.

It's not what the politicians are doing...it's just which group is doing it that really bothers you.

And here I thought you wanted change.

- Collapse -
RE:pull her friend out of Libya like other countries did..
Sep 10, 2016 4:02AM PDT

You think "friends of politicians" should get "special treatment"?

You think America should do what "other countries did"? Which countries? Which actions? When?

America?...Leader? Follower?

- Collapse -
Have you ever thought aboout why
Sep 11, 2016 4:02AM PDT

there wasn't enough security at the embassy? Could it have been because the Republican Congress cut the funding three times before Libya and even once afterward even though both Clinton and Obama said we needed those funds for security?

How about almost 60 dead in 11 embassy attacks under Bush. I didn't hear any outrage or investigations about them?

- Collapse -
I wondered when you would be back
Sep 11, 2016 6:27AM PDT

with the crap about Bush again, but no mention as usual about the attacks that were made during Bill's reign that he did nothing about. As for Benghazi, there was plenty of warnings that things were going south way ahead of time, including other countries and the Red Cross pulling out. So let's not go there, Diana....

hilLIARy's own STAFF told Congress that funding was NOT the issue, so forget that argument as well.

The ONLY reason we went into Libya in the first place was because we were giving guns to the rebels and that's why the CIA annex was there secretly in the first place. We HAD to get in there and get the weapons out that WE had brought in there. hilLIARy needed Libya to be a 'success' story for her own personal legacy and she put that ahead of the safety of her friend and wouldn't even MOVE him as he requested out of harm's way.

The attacks under Bush's administration came without warnings, and no ambassadors died because of his negligence. Every single move that hilLIARy has had involvement in has ended in total chaos, destruction, deaths, and disaster. She talks about how Trump's 'praise' of Putin is disturbing and dangerous......what about when SHE praised Assad from the beginning claiming he was a 'reformer' and yet one year later changed her mind and said he was a killer who had to go? http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/hillary-clinton-in-2011-assad-is-a-reformer-hillary-clinton-2012-killer-assad-must-go/

Show me ONE instance where she has gotten foreign policy right?

- Collapse -
RE:she put that ahead of the safety of her friend
Sep 11, 2016 11:43AM PDT
- Collapse -
This says it all....
Sep 11, 2016 12:00PM PDT

"“I know he had a lot of respect for Secretary Clinton. He admired her ability to intensely read the issues and understand the whole picture.”

Unfortunately, he trusted HER but she didn't trust HIM when it came to those hundreds of requests for more security......instead she PULLED the little bit of security he already had and left him 'naked' and 'swinging in the wind'. She never had and never will have the ability to 'intensely read the issues and understand the whole picture' because the ONLY picture she sees is HER portrait hanging on the wall in the WH.

As I stated before, the FUNDS were NOT an issue according to Congressional statements made by her own staff.

- Collapse -
RE:As I stated before, the FUNDS were NOT an issue according
Sep 11, 2016 12:19PM PDT

As I stated before, the FUNDS were NOT an issue according to Congressional statements made by her own staff.

I know you WILL provide a link that proves your claim. And then I'll look for a link that claims something different.

- Collapse -
Here's your link....
Sep 11, 2016 1:28PM PDT

With a direct quote from Charlene Lamb about it.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/24/budget-figures-challenge-clinton-claim-about-lack-funding-for-security.html

"Still, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb testified in October that the size of the attack -- and not the money -- was the issue.

Asked if there was any budget consideration that led her not to increase the security force, she said: "No."

She added: "This was an unprecedented attack in size." Asked again about budget issues, Lamb said: "Sir, if it's a volatile situation, we will move assets to cover that."

Now show me yours............

- Collapse -
RE:As I stated before, the FUNDS were NOT an issue accordin.
Sep 11, 2016 1:57PM PDT
As I stated before, the FUNDS were NOT an issue according to Congressional statements made by her own staff.


State Department Funds for Embassy and Diplomatic Security (total security spending, plus supplemental and overseas contingency operations funds)


Whichever numbers you use, they tell a similar story: Congress did not fully fund the administration’s diplomatic security requests for several years.

officials on the ground in Benghazi struggled to get additional security upgrades because they didn’t have cash reserves and had to rely on the embassy in Tripoli to pass along requests.

Farrow pointed to "cuts" by Democrats and Republicans in Congress in recent years from what the Obama administration requested in embassy security funding and tied it to Benghazi, saying, "It’s easy to gain political plaudits by saying ‘spend less around the world,’ and then it leads up to these tragedies."
- Collapse -
You always insist on underscoring
Sep 11, 2016 3:34PM PDT

"Republicans" as if Democrats had nothing do with the decision.

However, the reason Benghazi didn't get the additional embassy funding was because it WASN'T an EMBASSY yet....it wasn't even a consulate yet. That's what hilLIARy's agenda was about.....creating one. It would have been an easy thing to give that extra security funding to Tripoli as stated in the budget, and put those agents on loan to Benghazi (it's a practice that's done all the time around the world, JP), but she and her Dept ignored it.

As for your politico link, you do know they are left leaning, don't you? They have become more so over the last ten years so I don't see them as a very credible source anymore for fact checking....however, read the following paragraphs taken from my link that has the actual Congressional hearing statements and the factual numbers regarding security budgets (I don't think you bothered to read my link since you were so frenzied to prove me wrong)...and pay attention to the second paragraph showing that the budget BALLOONED except for the years 2011 and 2012, so there was plenty of money available as Lamb testified to. Then read the last two paragraphs from Lamb's testimony. MONEY was never an issue. IT WAS NEGLECT ON THE PART OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND HER DEPARTMENT THAT GOT THEM KILLED.

"Democratic New York Rep. Eliot Engel claimed Congress "slashed" diplomatic security requests over the past two years.

Budget numbers, though, show the overall diplomatic security budget has ballooned over the past decade. While there were modest decreases in funding in recent years -- and Congress has approved less than was requested -- the overall security budget has more than doubled since fiscal 2004.

For that year, the budget was $640 million. It steadily climbed to $1.6 billion in fiscal 2010. It dipped to $1.5 billion the following year and roughly $1.35 billion in fiscal 2012.

Slightly more has been requested for fiscal 2013.

It's difficult to tell how much was specifically allocated for Benghazi. Tripoli was the only post mentioned in the department's fiscal 2013 request -- funding for that location did slip, from $11.5 million in fiscal 2011 to $10.1 million the following year. Slightly more has been requested for fiscal 2013.

Still, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Diplomatic Security Charlene Lamb testified in October that the size of the attack -- and not the money -- was the issue.

Asked if there was any budget consideration that led her not to increase the security force, she said: "No."

- Collapse -
RE:You always insist on underscoring
Sep 11, 2016 7:12PM PDT

You always insist on underscoring "Republicans" as if Democrats had nothing do with the decision.

AND

YOU always insist on underscoring "Democrats" as if Republicans had nothing do with the decision.

It's like "looking in a mirror"?

Exactly the same only different?

- Collapse -
Evidently, since you
Sep 12, 2016 2:22AM PDT

as usual only targeted in and focused on the first sentence of my post, I've proved you wrong and you can't admit to that regarding the funding NOT being the issue with Benghazi and you've run out of debate material with nothing left to say to 'show me yours'.....

Bye.........

- Collapse -
RE:only targeted in and focused
Sep 12, 2016 3:07AM PDT
only targeted in and focused on the first sentence of my post,

THAT'S when i stop reading ALL of YOUR posts.
- Collapse -
So you admit that you aren't
Sep 12, 2016 5:58AM PDT

interested in facts after all........you are only interested in your opinion, even if it's proven wrong. OK.......typical liberal; when you run out of debate material, ignore everything or attempt to shut down the conversation entirely.

- Collapse -
RE:when you run out of debate material, ignore everything or
Sep 12, 2016 6:30AM PDT
when you run out of debate material, ignore everything or attempt to shut down the conversation entirely.


I notice YOU had NO comment to this post by me.


So when a "embassy" under the Bush administration is attacked THEY were "blindsided",

And when an embassy is attacked under Obama...THEY should have known.

The stench of hypocrisy is wafting across political lines
- Collapse -
I DID reply to this, but since
Sep 12, 2016 8:35AM PDT

you have admitted that after my first sentence you stop reading my posts, it's reasonable to believe that you never saw the response. It's a shame that you're so lazy and willing to be uninformed regarding facts put in front of you.

- Collapse -
RE:She talks about how Trump's 'praise' of Putin
Sep 11, 2016 11:55AM PDT
She talks about how Trump's 'praise' of Putin is disturbing and dangerous......what about when SHE praised Assad from the beginning claiming he was a 'reformer' and yet one year later changed her mind and said he was a killer who had to go?

In 1 year/6 months TheRUMP could be accusing Putin of being a killer?
- Collapse -
RE:The attacks under Bush's administration
Sep 11, 2016 12:46PM PDT
The attacks under Bush's administration came without warnings,

NO WARNING at all?

11 or 13 attacks? ALL without warning? Were ALL of these "attacks" on the same day?

So if THEY(ISIS) don't give YOU a "warning", YOU give Republicans a pass?

What if the 'warning" doesn't come early enough for YOU to defend yourself?
- Collapse -
Those attacks were spontaneous without
Sep 11, 2016 1:32PM PDT

any one at the embassies seeing the danger coming at them....Benghazi had already been bombed once, other countries had pulled their people out, as did the Red Cross well ahead of time. EVERYONE in Benghazi saw it coming and begged for help LONG before the attack took place and were ignored completely.

- Collapse -
So when a "embassy" under the Bush admistration
Sep 11, 2016 2:15PM PDT

is attacked THEY were "blindsided",

And when an embassy is attacked under Obama...THEY should have known.

The stench of hypocrisy is wafting across political lines

- Collapse -
Yo! TONI H .....The silence is deafening....
Sep 12, 2016 11:53AM PDT

No comment on The above post by me?

So when a "embassy" under the Bush administration is attacked THEY were "blindsided",

And when an embassy is attacked under Obama...THEY should have known.

The stench of hypocrisy is wafting across political lines


YOU claim

I DID reply to this, but since you have admitted that after my first sentence you stop reading my posts, it's reasonable to believe that you never saw the response. It's a shame that you're so lazy and willing to be uninformed regarding facts put in front of you.

Perhaps uninformed responses are going into the cloud? THAT'
S where YOUR response go.