House Select Committee Report on Benghazi To Be Released

[texas_ex2000]

Crockett, are you suggesting that it's impossible for executives in State to have been negligent over 2 embassy attacks? Or that 13 embassy attacks explicity means State leadership should have been investigated for negilignece in the case of Bush and Reagan?

We court martial captains of Navy ships in the cases of infrequent groundings where no one is injured, but have given hundreds of silver stars to commanders of companies that lost men in close action.

Thank goodness we can use common sense to see through a handful of statistics with no context.

 

[Horn6721]

Nah Tex2000
Those are just partisan facts.

 

[iatrogenic]

Crockett,

I am not criticizing the Democratic party or supporting the Republican party by posting facts. The facts do show that Ms. Clinton and the folks at the State department did fabricate a lie to cover their mismanagement. The facts do not indicate that Ms. Clinton is an honorable or good person.

I will say this; if one of my family members had died in the attack, there would be some serious repercussions for the people at the State Department that mismanaged this situation, and I wouldn't give a damn what their government title was. Situations like this are not a "game". You don't play politics with peoples' lives. They should be held accountable. That goes for all politicians edit: (and non-politicians)

What is the term used in the legal system if you know you are doing something wrong yet you do it anyway and someone is injured? Gross negligence. If you know you don't have enough security at a location (because the people at the location have repeatedly told you this), you continue to ignore the requests for more security, and subsequently four people are killed, it would seem like a good example of gross negligence.

 

[Crockett]

The Secretary of State's job is the entire world and embassy security is a finite resource that had been made more scarce by Republican led funding cuts. Again, if you think we should have an omnicient Secretary of State who prevents anything from going badly wrong anywhere in the world and have someone to say"You're fired" when someone dies, I think the Republicans have identified the perfect candidate.

 

[iatrogenic]

I believe your straw man argument about omniscience has been addressed.

I have heard your argument from various people at various times throughout my life whenever they fail. Basically, it states, "It's not my fault", It's someone else's fault".

She has voluntarily assumed the responsibilities of the job. The job comes with certain requirements that she is charged with executing. At what point is she accountable? She would never be held accountable for anything using your, "I'm responsible for the entire world, therefore, there is no way I can do the right thing when needed because I can't see or know everything going on."

If the Secretary of State's job is too big for her to handle, how does that qualify her to be President?

She neither has the character, nor the abilities we should seek in a President.

 

[Crockett]

My support for Hillary is Tepid. I think she is smarter, more experienced in world affairs and more honorable in her personal conduct than Donald Trump. I'd prefer Hillary over Trump in a way that I would prefer contracting genital herpes over contracting HIV.

If think it unrealistic to expect a mortal president and mortal secretary of state to make the world 100 percent safe 100 percent of the time for our diplomatic corps. I guess I'll leave the definition of gross negligence to the lawyers.

 

[iatrogenic]

I can agree with everything you stated. I don't think the second paragraph applies to what happened, but is a true statement.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Crock, you're a sharp guy, but iatrogenic is beating your *** like I've never seen it beaten before. People can argue over how much culpability a SoS has over an assault on a consulate or embassy. It's true that simple neglect by public officials rarely results in any kind of political fallout. (Notable exception - Michael Brown essentially got sacked for Hurricane Katrina based on alleged negligence.) However, Hillary lied about the attack after it occurred, and that is indisputable and indefensible. You're dancing around that fact and diverting attention away from it by bringing up this strawman about being omniscient. It's very weak and frankly beneath someone of your intelligence and general sense of fairness and justice.

 

[iatrogenic]

I think both of us just want someone better to be on the ballot. Kasich was the guy. Given the talent in this country, it's truly disappointing that one of these two individuals will be President.

 

[mchammer]

I think both of us just want someone better to be on the ballot. Kasich was the guy. Given the talent in this country, it's truly disappointing that one of these two individuals will be President.

It's a reaction to crony capitalism. Hillary will keep the game going. Trump will not, or at least that is what the Washington establishment thinks.

 

[iatrogenic]

True, but, in my opinion, voters support Trump because of the "idea" that he might change things in the Federal government (you know, Hope and Change). That is how Obama was elected, but he had no realistic plan either. It's certainly a difficult job.

Trying to defend Trump or Hillary is like trying to defend Pee Wee Herman showing up at your grandmother's 80th birthday party, jumping on the table with the cake, and beginning the self-pleasing act while everyone else is singing Happy Birthday Dear Agnes. There is no defense. It's just disgusting.

 

[Crockett]

However, Hillary lied about the attack after it occurred, and that is indisputable and indefensible. You're dancing around that fact and diverting attention away from it by bringing up this strawman about being omniscient.

I'll admit that I can't come up with a good defense for Hillary's post-attack behavior so I haven't gone there. I'll offer that I don't see it as "inexcusable" though because she's just engaging in the same sort of reprehensible behavior used by people whose political views correlate less well with mine.

In that last Bush Administration we had Cheney, Rove, Alberto Gonzales, etc. operating on morally questionable ground, obfuscating, lying and doing harm to good government. I'd have lower expectations for the sort of "yes men" a narcissist like Trump would surround himself with. I came of age earlier than you Deez. I watched Watergate hearings on network news after I finished a days stacking hay on trucks and in hot barns. I've never come to accept lying and and choosing the politically expedient path as good ... but I can discern general levels of government scumbaggery, and there are some levels lower than those where Clinton operates.

The other "defense" I would offer would be to cite a story about Admiral Nimitz, whom I assume is universally admired. After replacing Admiral Kimmel who led the disastrous Pacific preparations prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, he chose to keep in place most of a staff that had failed miserably. They rewarded him with loyalty and good service.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'll admit that I can't come up with a good defense for Hillary's post-attack behavior so I haven't gone there. I'll offer that I don't see it as "inexcusable" though because she's just engaging in the same sort of reprehensible behavior used by people whose political views correlate less well with mine.

In that last Bush Administration we had Cheney, Rove, Alberto Gonzales, etc. operating on morally questionable ground, obfuscating, lying and doing harm to good government. I'd have lower expectations for the sort of "yes men" a narcissist like Trump would surround himself with. I came of age earlier than you Deez. I watched Watergate hearings on network news after I finished a days stacking hay on trucks and in hot barns. I've never come to accept lying and and choosing the politically expedient path as good ... but I can discern general levels of government scumbaggery, and there are some levels lower than those where Clinton operates.

The other "defense" I would offer would be to cite a story about Admiral Nimitz, whom I assume is universally admired. After replacing Admiral Kimmel who led the disastrous Pacific preparations prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor, he chose to keep in place most of a staff that had failed miserably. They rewarded him with loyalty and good service.

A few problems here. First, people who value the truth shouldn't be trying to come up with a good defense for someone who lies.

Second, there's a big distinction between the Republicans you mentioned and Hillary. You suspect that Cheney and his people lied, but you really don't know that. You do know that Hillary lied. There is no plausible deniability, and there is no benefit of the doubt to give. She didn't misspeak. She didn't unknowingly make a false statement. She objectively and verifiably lied.

Why does that distinction matter? Because if you won't draw the line with actual dishonesty, then you're essentially saying that you don't care what the truth is. You'll disagree and say you greatly care about the truth, but the bottom line is that you're willing let blatant dishonesty slide so long as you can redirect your attention to some Republican politician you esteem less. And you'll always be able to do that. There's no reason for a Democratic politician to tell you the truth.

 

[Horn6721]

There is nothing honorable in Hillary ' s personal conduct
Certainly her personal decision to set up her own server to conduct our country's diplomatic and sensitive business is disgusting and questionable

But to lie to the faces of grieving family members may be the least honorable thing a SOS can do.

 

[Crockett]

First, people who value the truth shouldn't be trying to come up with a good defense for someone who lies.

Yeah, maybe I should leave that to somebody who cares more for Hillary than I do because I'd hardly describe what I've offered on this thread as a "good" defense.

 

[mchammer]

While I enjoy the back and forth on this, I suspect that come Election Day you will walk into the privacy of the voting booth and vote for Trump. I came to that conclusion weeks ago for myself. Only a matter of time before you will too.

 

[ShAArk92]

Mc.

Don't misspell his name

 

[Mr. Deez]

Yeah, maybe I should leave that to somebody who cares more for Hillary than I do because I'd hardly describe what I've offered on this thread as a "good" defense.

And by the way, not defending Hillary doesn't mean supporting or liking Trump.

 

[Mr. Deez]

While I enjoy the back and forth on this, I suspect that come Election Day you will walk into the privacy of the voting booth and vote for Trump. I came to that conclusion weeks ago for myself. Only a matter of time before you will too.

I'd bet my left nut and half of my right one that Crockett ain't voting for Trump.

 

[Crockett]

I can't imagine voting for Trump, but I have voted Republican in presidential elections.

 

[iatrogenic]

The Secretary of State's job is the entire world and embassy security is a finite resource that had been made more scarce by Republican led funding cuts. Again, if you think we should have an omnicient Secretary of State who prevents anything from going badly wrong anywhere in the world and have someone to say"You're fired" when someone dies, I think the Republicans have identified the perfect candidate.

I realize this is about to be a dead horse, but check out this quote from Hillary on her website:

Hillary's position:

"Holding executives accountable when they are responsible for their subordinates’ misconduct. Hillary believes that when corporations pay large fines to the government for violating the law, those fines should cut into the bonuses of the executives who were responsible for or should have caught the problem. And when egregious misconduct happens on an executive’s watch, that executive should lose his or her job."

 

[Seattle Husker]

I'd bet my left nut and half of my right one that Crockett ain't voting for Trump.

Only half of the right one?

 

[Crockett]

Hey let's be careful with Mr. Deez' fertility. If Republicans are going to run Texas we need to do everything in our power to encourage the smart ones to breed.