Hillary shows how nuts she is. Defends the indefensible.

[_Kevin Graham]

Yes, there is a difference when she, as is the Obama policy,
took no responsiblity:
she blamed Bush
she blamed lack of money (even though her dept had almost $3 billion in unspent embassy security funds)
she blamed "not receiving any cable warning of possible attacks"
she blamed work overload with Iraq/Afghanistan
she blamed Bosnia
for someone who claims to be "responsible" she sure blames others a lot.

Yes, you're really this dumb.

Fox's Kirsten Powers: Clinton Seems Not To Be "Taking Any Kind Of Responsibility" For Benghazi. During the December 22 edition of Fox News Watch, Fox News contributor Kirsten Powers said, "I think Hillary Clinton has said the buck stops with her. The president says the buck stops with him, and yet, they're the only two people who don't seem to be really taking any kind of responsibility." [Fox News, Fox News Watch, 12/22/12, via Nexis]

FACT: Clinton Accepted Responsibility For Benghazi Attack

WSJ: "Clinton Accepts Blame For Benghazi." From an October 16 Wall Street Journal article:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she takes responsibility for security at the American diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya, where Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans died in an attack last month.

"I take responsibility," Mrs. Clinton said in a recent interview in her office. "I'm the Secretary of State with 60,000-plus employees around the world. This is like a big family...It's painful, absolutely painful." [The Wall Street Journal, 10/16/12]

Fox's Krauthammer: Clinton "Didn't Say A Word" For Months Following Benghazi Attack. During the January 8 edition of Fox News' Special Report, Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said, "The first thing [Clinton] has to explain is why for three months after the event -- two months after the event, and before her injury she didn't say a word. She is the head of the department. The ambassador worked for her. He didn't work for Susan Rice. And she said the buck stops here and then she said nothing." [Fox News, Special Report, 1/8/13, via Nexis]

The Hill's A.B. Stoddard: Clinton "Has Been Conspicuously Absent" From Benghazi Discussion. On the December 18 edition of Special Report, The Hill's A.B. Stoddard said that Clinton "has been conspicuously absent from any situation since September 11 where she would have to talk about it. Absent. She did finally make a comment about Susan Rice, but absent defending her, absent from giving an account of what happened, with the exception that she wanted to make a statement of being fully accountable." [Fox News, Special Report, 12/18/12, via Nexis]

Fox's Gutfeld: Clinton Is On An "Avoid Benghazi Tour." During the November 20 edition of The Five, co-host Greg Gutfeld said: "It's good to see [Clinton] continue the avoid Benghazi tour. It's very nice, and way to roll in on the tenth inning." [Fox News, The Five, 11/20/12, via Nexis]

FACT: Clinton Spoke Extensively About Benghazi

September 11: Clinton Condemns Benghazi Attack. On the day of the Benghazi attacks, Clinton released a press statement condemning the events and coordinated additional security for Americans in Libya. [State.gov, 9/11/12]

September 12: Clinton Pays Respects To Stevens And Smith. During remarks made from the State Department, Clinton again condemned the attacks on Americans in Benghazi and paid respects to Ambassador Chris Stevens and Sean Smith, one of the other three Americans killed in the attack. [State.gov, 9/12/12]

September 13: Clinton Pays Respects To Woods And Doherty. Following the notification of their families, Clinton issued a press statement which paid respects to the other two Americans killed in the attacks, which she again condemned. [State.gov, 9/13/12]

September 14: Clinton Pays Respects To Four Dead Americans. During a ceremony at Andrews Air Force Base, Secretary Clinton paid respects to the four deceased Americans and thanked their families for their service to the country. [State.gov, 9/14/12]

October 12: Clinton On Benghazi: "To This Day We Do Not Have A Complete Picture." In remarks made on October 12, Clinton said that the details of the attack were still being investigated and that "there is much we still don't know." [ABC News, 10/12/12]

October 15: Clinton Takes Responsibility For Benghazi Attack. In an October 15 CNN interview, Clinton said that she was responsible for the security of diplomats abroad and committed to bringing those responsible to justice. [CNN, 10/15/12]

October 16: Clinton Speaks In Depth About Attacks. Speaking in depth with CBS News, Clinton emphasized that the information about the details of the attacks would evolve beyond what was immediately known. [CBS News, 10/16/12]

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/0 ... lin/192354

[_Jaybear]

But perhaps the biggest difference it makes is that when we understand motivation for murder, such as these, we have an advantage for preventing them from happening again....

Sorry, but you are reading out of her question the statement "at this point."

So, more narrowly, in what objective measurable way do we, as a nation have lesser understanding for the motives, because during her appearance in public, Ambassador Rice repeated the CIA talking points while the investigation was still under way.

TO answer the question, you have to understand what policy decisions were made, and what action were taken as a result of the erroneous and misleading CIA talking points.

I am not aware of any. And frankly it would have been premature to do anything, until the investigation was completed.

Unlike the consistent misleading reports of WMDs in IRAQ, we didn't start a war on false pretenses.

So please try to answer the question again. You last answer gets an F. Substance please, not right wing rhetoric.

[_Kevin Graham]

Sorry, but you are reading out of her question the statement "at this point."

As is every other idiot on Facebook, proving that they're just acting as FOX News puppets who never bothered to watch this exchange for themselves. They're just taking it on faith that their Right Wing media is going to tell them the truth.

[_Jason Bourne]

FOX viewers who think Hillary was bested today are living in the bubble.

To be fair to Fox, I read one of their online articles and saw some reporting briefly on TV and at least what I saw nobody said Hillary was bested. My take on what I saw she did fine. I think her exasperatuion was justified and her comment on what does it matter should not be taken out of context.

[_krose]

When you run across well read, educated, critical thinkers who roll their eyes and guffaw... conservatives, especially those with higher levels of education, both formal and informal...

This is hilarious, mainly because you seem to think you're describing yourself.

[_krose]

Let us first start out with the difference John Tobin considers it makes:
"The answer to her question is clear. An administration that sought, for political purposes, to give the American people the idea that al-Qaeda had been "decimated" and was effectively out of commission had a clear motive during a presidential campaign to mislead the public about Benghazi.

We all knew the attack was premeditated, with terrorism as its aim, well before the election. You saw how big a deal that was to voters.

You act as if we all thought terrorism was over because bin Ladin is dead. Two things can be simultaneously true: that al Qaeda is decimated, and that other groups can successfully strike US targets. The Libyan attack took almost no resources, and only minor planning. Terrorists don't need massive infrastructure, just a couple of guys with some weapons, a plan, and an opportunity. That's why it will never, ever be eradicated.

If Obama had come out the next day and made a big speech about it being a terrorist attack, and announcing plans to strike back, it would have made zero difference in the election's outcome. To think otherwise is simply a right-wing fantasy.

[_Brackite]

Hillary did some serious butt kicking today.

I keep asking without an answer. Who do you think republicans will run against Hillary in 2016?

1. Jon Huntsman would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton.

2. Chris Christie would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton.

3. Rick Santorum would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton.


Just kidding on #3. However, Jon Huntsman or Chris Christie would be a better choice for President than Hillary Clinton.

[_krose]

Do you think Republicans would vote for a pro-choice primary candidate?

[_subgenius]

Sorry, but you are reading out of her question the statement "at this point."

As is every other idiot on Facebook, proving that they're just acting as FOX News puppets who never bothered to watch this exchange for themselves. They're just taking it on faith that their Right Wing media is going to tell them the truth.

You sound like a Bush supporter during the last administration...refusing to see any fault in your political messiah....you guzzle the Kool-Aid.

[_subgenius]

Do you think Republicans would vote for a pro-choice primary candidate?

likely more would than would Democrats for a Pro-Life primary candidate....with the former doing so because of their conscience and the latter because of their blind adherence.