Sweet Angle Smile
Montreal Escorts

Trumped

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doc Holliday

Hopelessly horny
Sep 27, 2003
19,277
719
113
Canada
Bush White House adviser backs Clinton over Trump

by Nick Gass, Politico


Donald Trump is uniting at least two high-profile, politically divided sisters together this November — against him.

"For the first time ever @KoriSchake and I are casting our vote for the same candidate -- She is voting for @HillaryClinton," Kristina Schake, the deputy communications director for Clinton, tweeted Saturday, referring to her sister, Kori, a research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution who worked for the National Security Council and the State Department under President George W. Bush after a stint at the Pentagon in the 1990s.

That's not to say Kori Schake, whose sister Kristina spent three years as first lady Michelle Obama's communications director, is jumping in feet first for Clinton. A profile of the politically minded sisters in Vogue last December noted that their father, Wayne, is a Republican, while their mother, Cecelia is a "ferociously civically active Democrat," along with an older brother, Kurt, a Republican. In the same article, Kori Schake said of her choices: “I can think of at least seven Republican hopefuls I’d prefer to have running the country than Kristina’s candidate."

But, she told POLITICO in an interview Monday, "it is true, and I wish I had a better alternative," adding that Trump is "such a political arsonist" that she cannot support him, particularly for his comments regarding women and minorities, which she called "unconscionable."

Schake, who advised Arizona Sen. John McCain during his 2008 presidential run and backed Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, then John Kasich in this year's Republican primary, has been trashing Trump for months — she was among the signers of a March open letter by GOP foreign policy wonks that concluded, "we are unable to support a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head."

Though she has also been critical of President Barack Obama's foreign policy, Schake said that Clinton "will be slightly better" than the current president, remarking that in some respects, Clinton would be an "awful lot better than Obama."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates could not have, for example, carried his argument in favor of expanding troops in Afghanistan without Clinton's support at the State Department early in her tenure, Schake added.

Even so, Clinton is "not going to be a whole lot better" than the current president, Schake said, adding that she expects the former secretary of state to "make mistakes." As such, Schake said like-minded conservatives should focus on getting worthy candidates in public office elsewhere and set their sights on 2020.
While a vote for Clinton is difficult for a conservative such as herself to cast, she later said, "I don't think there's a doubt that she should be a better president than Donald Trump."

Schake is only the latest Republican foreign policy figure to come out in support of Clinton against Trump. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser under President George H.W. Bush, announced last Wednesday that he is backing Clinton, while fellow foreign-policy realist Richard Armitage, George W. Bush's deputy secretary of state, told POLITICO earlier this month that he would vote for the former secretary of state over Trump.


More GOP defections
 

Passionné

New Member
May 14, 2016
763
0
0
Mr.Daydreamer41 always seems to bring up the extreme examples like Venezuela.

He also just lost one of his favorite complaints. Note The House of Representatives is dominated by Republicans and they'd love to see Clinton take a hard fall. But here is is:

House Benghazi Panel Finds No New Evidence of Wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ho...oing-by-hillary-clinton/ar-AAhINBW?li=BBnb7Kz

WASHINGTON — Ending one of the longest, costliest and most bitterly partisan congressional investigations in history, the House Select Committee on Benghazi issued its final report on Tuesday, finding no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing by Hillary Clinton in the 2012 attacks in Libya that left four Americans dead.

The 800-page report, however, included some new details about the night of the attacks, and the context in which it occurred, and it delivered a broad rebuke of government agencies like the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department — and the officials who led them — for failing to grasp the acute security risks in the Libyan city, and especially for maintaining outposts in Benghazi that they could not protect.


The committee, led by Representative Trey Gowdy, Republican of South Carolina, also harshly criticized an internal State Department investigation that it said had allowed officials like Mrs. Clinton, then the secretary of state, to effectively choose who would investigate their actions. In addition, it reiterated Republicans’ complaints that the Obama administration had sought to thwart the investigation by withholding witnesses and evidence.


The report, however, did not dispute that United States military forces stationed in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time to rescue the personnel who died — a central finding of previous inquiries.

.......

Summarize - All investigations show, including this one led by Republican Trey Gowdy from hardcore Republican state South Carolina, there wasn't enough time to save anyone regardless of how quickly action had been taken.
 

hungry101

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2007
5,842
549
113
Go, Trump, Go.

Ok. Can we call a truce? This is the week of VIP7.
This week is a celebration about the things that bring us together.
This is supposed to be a happy time.

I'm seeing Someone very special today and tomorrow I have a 3 sum set up!

I am going back to school and taking a survey in North American Clit.

And Thomas Jefferson was an adulterer and owned slaves!!!!

See. I'm not so bad. Lol

I owe you a drink Doc and Cloud

It's a VIP 7 miracle
 

Passionné

New Member
May 14, 2016
763
0
0
Mr.Daydreamer41

I wonder if he'll answer where he stands on this???

Pastors Praise Anti-Gay Massacre in Orlando, Prompting Outrage

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/u...ay-massacre-in-orlando-prompting-outrage.html

After the massacre in Orlando, Fla., American religious leaders spoke in a largely unified voice, condemning the killer and mourning the dead. But at some extreme conservative Christian churches, there was another message: good riddance.


In the weeks since 49 people were slaughtered at a gay nightclub, remarks by pastors celebrating the deaths have brought attention to several outposts of anti-gay hostility across the country that until now had been operating mostly under the radar.

The tragedy is that more of them didn’t die,” Roger Jimenez, a Sacramento preacher, exhorted his congregants on June 12, the day of the assault. “The tragedy is — I’m kind of upset that he didn’t finish the job! Because these people are predators! They are abusers!”


Mr. Jimenez’s sermon received widespread attention after a video of it appeared online, and then a torrent of denunciation from gay rights advocates, fellow pastors and pretty much everyone who saw it. But his sentiments were also echoed in at least a few other churches.


Rebecca Barrett-Fox, a visiting assistant professor of sociology at Arkansas State University who has researched Christian extremists, said she had tracked about five churches — in California, Texas, Arizona and Tennessee — where preachers had endorsed the killings in Orlando.

......

This is so malignant it seems like a bad cartoon movie character.
 

Passionné

New Member
May 14, 2016
763
0
0
Trey Gowdy is a sharp politician

Funny thing about the timing of releasing this report. It's an exoneration of Hillary Clinton. Did it have to be released now? Are Gowdy and the others sending a message to Trump by bringing out something that helps Clinton on a very key issue, her competency as Secretary of State? It looks like a dislike of Trump among Republicans is very broad.
 

PopeDover

New Member
Jul 3, 2009
298
0
0
deplorable basket case
It looks like a dislike of Trump among the establishment is very broad.

Passionné, a minor upgrade to your already accurate statement, and it would be political suicide to oppose Clinton in any meaningful way. When you take a step back from the lip service, tweets, headlines, etc., it seems like they're all just playing roles for a common purpose as part of the same club and if you stray from the script you get kicked out.

just my opinion maybe
 

Doc Holliday

Hopelessly horny
Sep 27, 2003
19,277
719
113
Canada
Joe Scarborough explodes at Trump for calling Elizabeth Warren and Native Americans “the least productive” people

"What the hell is wrong with [Trump and Scott Brown]?" he asked, "Are they stupid? Are they stupid?"

According to the narrative beloved by conservative media, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is an inveterate liar whose duplicity extends to her family history — or, at the very least, to her understanding of it.

Every time a Fox News figurehead mentions Warren’s claim to have Native American heritage — which is, essentially, every time anyone on Fox News mention her name — they neglect to mention that Warren was not speaking about her genetic birthright, but about “family stories…what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mammaw and my pappaw.”

But that’s not how her opponents characterize her claim, as Scott Brown — who lost his Senate seat to her in 2012 — reminded everyone on Monday when he called for Warren to prove her Native American ancestry by submitting to a DNA test.

For his part, Trump reacted to Warren joining Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail by saying “I hope that she’s selected as the vice presidential running mate — I will speak very openly about her if she is. She is one of the least productive senators in the United States senate — we call her ‘Pocahontas’ for a reason.”

Whether he was aware that he just slurred Native Americans — apparently they are not as “productive” as their American counterparts — is debatable, but what is not up for debate is that Joe Scarborough does not think this is a winning rhetorical strategy for the Republican candidate.

On Morning Joe Tuesday, he said that “this is when you know you’re losing a debate — when your opponent is talking about working class Americans, and fighting hard to bring working class Americans back into the mainstream of American economic life, but you’re talking about whether someone is 1/32 Native American and suggesting DNA testing.”

“What the hell is wrong with them?” Scarborough asked. “Are they stupid? Are they stupid?” After complaining that this isn’t quite the “presidential turn” the candidate promised after becoming the presumptive nominee, Scarborough said that “if you’re going to turn the page, you turn the page.”

“But you can’t keep turning back,” he added. “They’ve got to be disciplined up and down the line. This ‘Pocahontas’ nonsense, this ‘goofy’ nonsense, they’ve got to stop — it doesn’t work. It makes them look small in the general election.”
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
Funny thing about the timing of releasing this report. It's an exoneration of Hillary Clinton. Did it have to be released now? Are Gowdy and the others sending a message to Trump by bringing out something that helps Clinton on a very key issue, her competency as Secretary of State? It looks like a dislike of Trump among Republicans is very broad.

You got it ass backwards again like always. Did you actually read it or are you citing Leftist Propaganda about the report?

The report shows how incompetent Clinton and Obama were. These fucking idiots Clinton and Obama were debating whether the Marines should be in their uniforms while Chris Stevens and other Embassy personnel were murdered by the Terrorists 8 hours after Stevens was murdered.

Do you know who came to the Embassy's rescue? The Libyan forces of Qaddafi.

http://benghazi.house.gov/NewInfo
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
I am going to do a cut and paste of the Congressional Report. It may remind you of ... Never Mind.

Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report
81 New Witnesses, 75,000 New Pages of Documents Reveal Significant New Information,

Fundamentally Changes the Public’s Understanding of the 2012 Terrorist Attacks that Killed Four Americans


Washington, D.C. – Select Committee on Benghazi Chairman Trey Gowdy (SC-04) released the following statement after the committee’s Majority released a mark of its investigative report:

“Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods were heroes who gave their lives in service to our country. Their bravery and the courageous actions of so many others on the ground that night should be honored.

“When the Select Committee was formed, I promised to conduct this investigation in a manner worthy of the American people’s respect, and worthy of the memory of those who died. That is exactly what my colleagues and I have done.

“Now, I simply ask the American people to read this report for themselves, look at the evidence we have collected, and reach their own conclusions. You can read this report in less time than our fellow citizens were taking fire and fighting for their lives on the rooftops and in the streets of Benghazi.”

The committee’s proposed report is just over 800 pages long and is comprised of five primary sections and 12 appendices. It details relevant events in 2011 and 2012.

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part I:

Despite President Obama and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s clear orders to deploy military assets, nothing was sent to Benghazi, and nothing was en route to Libya at the time the last two Americans were killed almost 8 hours after the attacks began. [pg. 141]
With Ambassador Stevens missing, the White House convened a roughly two-hour meeting at 7:30 PM, which resulted in action items focused on a YouTube video, and others containing the phrases “f any deployment is made,” and “Libya must agree to any deployment,” and “[w]ill not deploy until order comes to go to either Tripoli or Benghazi.” [pg. 115]
The Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff typically would have participated in the White House meeting, but did not attend because he went home to host a dinner party for foreign dignitaries. [pg. 107]
A Fleet Antiterrorism Security Team (FAST) sat on a plane in Rota, Spain, for three hours, and changed in and out of their uniforms four times. [pg. 154]
None of the relevant military forces met their required deployment timelines. [pg. 150]
The Libyan forces that evacuated Americans from the CIA Annex to the Benghazi airport was not affiliated with any of the militias the CIA or State Department had developed a relationship with during the prior 18 months. Instead, it was comprised of former Qadhafi loyalists who the U.S. had helped remove from power during the Libyan revolution. [pg. 144]
Rep. Mike Pompeo (KS-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way. That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans, and while the administration had made excuses and blamed the challenges posed by time and distance, the truth is that they did not try.”

Rep. Martha Roby (AL-02) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Our committee’s insistence on additional information about the military’s response to the Benghazi attacks was met with strong opposition from the Defense Department, and now we know why. Instead of attempting to hide deficiencies in our posture and performance, it’s my hope our report will help ensure we fix what went wrong so that a tragedy like this never happens again.”

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part II:

Five of the 10 action items from the 7:30 PM White House meeting referenced the video, but no direct link or solid evidence existed connecting the attacks in Benghazi and the video at the time the meeting took place. The State Department senior officials at the meeting had access to eyewitness accounts to the attack in real time. The Diplomatic Security Command Center was in direct contact with the Diplomatic Security Agents on the ground in Benghazi and sent out multiple updates about the situation, including a “Terrorism Event Notification.” The State Department Watch Center had also notified Jake Sullivan and Cheryl Mills that it had set up a direct telephone line to Tripoli. There was no mention of the video from the agents on the ground. Greg Hicks—one of the last people to talk to Chris Stevens before he died—said there was virtually no discussion about the video in Libya leading up to the attacks. [pg. 28]
The morning after the attacks, the National Security Council’s Deputy Spokesperson sent an email to nearly two dozen people from the White House, Defense Department, State Department, and intelligence community, stating: “Both the President and Secretary Clinton released statements this morning. … Please refer to those for any comments for the time being. To ensure we are all in sync on messaging for the rest of the day, Ben Rhodes will host a conference call for USG communicators on this chain at 9:15 ET today.” [pg. 39]
Minutes before the President delivered his speech in the Rose Garden, Jake Sullivan wrote in an email to Ben Rhodes and others: “There was not really much violence in Egypt. And we are not saying that the violence in Libya erupted ‘over inflammatory videos.’” [pg. 44]
According to Susan Rice, both Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe prepared her for her appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows following the attacks. Nobody from the FBI, Department of Defense, or CIA participated in her prep call. While Rhodes testified Plouffe would “normally” appear on the Sunday show prep calls, Rice testified she did not recall Plouffe being on prior calls and did not understand why he was on the call in this instance. [pg.98]
On the Sunday shows, Susan Rice stated the FBI had “already begun looking at all sorts of evidence” and “FBI has a lead in this investigation.” But on Monday, the Deputy Director, Office of Maghreb Affairs sent an email stating: “McDonough apparently told the SVTS [Secure Video Teleconference] group today that everyone was required to ‘shut their pieholes’ about the Benghazi attack in light of the FBI investigation, due to start tomorrow.” [pg. 135]
After Susan Rice’s Sunday show appearances, Jake Sullivan assured the Secretary of the State that Rice “wasn’t asked about whether we had any intel. But she did make clear our view that this started spontaneously and then evolved.” [pg. 128]
Susan Rice’s comments on the Sunday talk shows were met with shock and disbelief by State Department employees in Washington. The Senior Libya Desk Officer, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, wrote: “I think Rice was off the reservation on this one.” The Deputy Director, Office of Press and Public Diplomacy, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, State Department, responded: “Off the reservation on five networks!” The Senior Advisor for Strategic Communications, Bureau of Near East Affairs, State Department, wrote: “WH [White House] very worried about the politics. This was all their doing.” [pg. 132]
The CIA’s September 13, 2012, intelligence assessment was rife with errors. On the first page, there is a single mention of “the early stages of the protest” buried in one of the bullet points. The article cited to support the mention of a protest in this instance was actually from September 4. In other words, the analysts used an article from a full week before the attacks to support the premise that a protest had occurred just prior to the attack on September 11. [pg. 47]
A headline on the following page of the CIA’s September 13 intelligence assessment stated “Extremists Capitalized on Benghazi Protests,” but nothing in the actual text box supports that title. As it turns out, the title of the text box was supposed to be “Extremists Capitalized on Cairo Protests.” That small but vital difference—from Cairo to Benghazi—had major implications in how people in the administration were able to message the attacks. [pg. 52]
Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“Obama Administration officials, including the Secretary of State, learned almost in real time that the attack in Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Rather than tell the American people the truth, the administration told one story privately and a different story publicly.”

Rep. Peter Roskam (IL-06) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“In the days and weeks after the attacks, the White House worked to pin all of the blame for their misleading and incorrect statements on officials within the intelligence community, but in reality, political operatives like Ben Rhodes and David Plouffe were spinning the false narrative and prepping Susan Rice for her interviews.”

The following facts are among the many new revelations in Part III:

During deliberations within the State Department about whether and how to intervene in Libya in March 2011, Jake Sullivan listed the first goal as “avoid[ing] a failed state, particularly one in which al-Qaeda and other extremists might take safe haven.” [pg. 9]
The administration’s policy of no boots on the ground shaped the type of military assistance provided to State Department personnel in Libya. The Executive Secretariats for both the Defense Department and State Department exchanged communications outlining the diplomatic capacity in which the Defense Department SST security team members would serve, which included wearing civilian clothes so as not to offend the Libyans. [pg. 60]
When the State Department’s presence in Benghazi was extended in December 2012, senior officials from the Bureau of Diplomatic Security were excluded from the discussion. [pg. 74]
In February 2012, the lead Diplomatic Security Agent at Embassy Tripoli informed his counterpart in Benghazi that more DS agents would not be provided by decision makers, because “substantive reporting” was not Benghazi’s purpose. [pg. 77]
Emails indicate senior State Department officials, including Cheryl Mills, Jake Sullivan, and Huma Abedin were preparing for a trip by the Secretary of State to Libya in October 2012. According to testimony, Chris Stevens wanted to have a “deliverable” for the Secretary for her trip to Libya, and that “deliverable” would be making the Mission in Benghazi a permanent Consulate. [pg. 96]
In August 2012—roughly a month before the Benghazi attacks—security on the ground worsened significantly. Ambassador Stevens initially planned to travel to Benghazi in early August, but cancelled the trip “primarily for Ramadan/security reasons.” [pg. 99]
Former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta bluntly told the committee “an intelligence failure” occurred with respect to Benghazi. Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell also acknowledged multiple times an intelligence failure did in fact occur prior to the Benghazi attacks. [pg. 129]
Rep. Susan Brooks (IN-05) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“President Obama has said his worst mistake was ‘failing to plan for the day after … intervening in Libya.’ As a result of this ‘lead from behind’ foreign policy, the Libyan people were forced to make the dismal trade of the tyranny of Qadhafi for the terror of ISIS, Al-Qaeda and others. Although the State Department considered Libya a grave risk to American diplomats in 2011 and 2012, our people remained in a largely unprotected, unofficial facility that one diplomatic security agent the committee interviewed characterized as ‘a suicide mission.’”

Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) released the following statement regarding these findings:

“One of the most concerning parts of the State Department’s policy in Libya was its reliance upon the militias of an unstable nation to protect our men and women in Benghazi. These were by no means forces that could adequately protect Americans on the ground, and the State Department knew it. But the appearance of no boots on the ground was more important to the administration.”

Part IV of the report reveals new information about the Select Committee’s requests and subpoenas seeking documents and witnesses regarding Benghazi and Libya, and details what the Obama administration provided to Congress, what it is still withholding, and how its serial delays hindered the committee’s efforts to uncover the truth.

Part V proposes 25 recommendations for the Pentagon, State Department, Intelligence Community and Congress aimed at strengthening security for American personnel serving abroad and doing everything possible to ensure something like Benghazi never happens again, and if it does, that we are better prepared to respond, the majority make a series of recommendations.

The Select Committee intends to convene a bipartisan markup to discuss and vote on the proposed report on July 8, 2016. All members of the committee will have the opportunity to offer changes in a manner consistent with the rules of the House.

Letter from Chairman Trey Gowdy to Speaker Paul Ryan

The Benghazi Committee's Investigation - By the Numbers

Below is the full report with links to PDF files of each section.

Report of the Select Committee on
the Events Surrounding the 2012
Terrorist Attack in Benghazi
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
Joe Scarborough explodes at Trump for calling Elizabeth Warren and Native Americans “the least productive” people

"What the hell is wrong with [Trump and Scott Brown]?" he asked, "Are they stupid? Are they stupid?"

According to the narrative beloved by conservative media, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is an inveterate liar whose duplicity extends to her family history — or, at the very least, to her understanding of it.

Every time a Fox News figurehead mentions Warren’s claim to have Native American heritage — which is, essentially, every time anyone on Fox News mention her name — they neglect to mention that Warren was not speaking about her genetic birthright, but about “family stories…what my brothers and I were told by my mom and my dad, my mammaw and my pappaw.”

But that’s not how her opponents characterize her claim, as Scott Brown — who lost his Senate seat to her in 2012 — reminded everyone on Monday when he called for Warren to prove her Native American ancestry by submitting to a DNA test.

For his part, Trump reacted to Warren joining Hillary Clinton on the campaign trail by saying “I hope that she’s selected as the vice presidential running mate — I will speak very openly about her if she is. She is one of the least productive senators in the United States senate — we call her ‘Pocahontas’ for a reason.”

Whether he was aware that he just slurred Native Americans — apparently they are not as “productive” as their American counterparts — is debatable, but what is not up for debate is that Joe Scarborough does not think this is a winning rhetorical strategy for the Republican candidate.

On Morning Joe Tuesday, he said that “this is when you know you’re losing a debate — when your opponent is talking about working class Americans, and fighting hard to bring working class Americans back into the mainstream of American economic life, but you’re talking about whether someone is 1/32 Native American and suggesting DNA testing.”

“What the hell is wrong with them?” Scarborough asked. “Are they stupid? Are they stupid?” After complaining that this isn’t quite the “presidential turn” the candidate promised after becoming the presumptive nominee, Scarborough said that “if you’re going to turn the page, you turn the page.”

“But you can’t keep turning back,” he added. “They’ve got to be disciplined up and down the line. This ‘Pocahontas’ nonsense, this ‘goofy’ nonsense, they’ve got to stop — it doesn’t work. It makes them look small in the general election.”

Nothing is wrong with Trump and Brown. Stupid? That's got to be reserved for Obama and Clinton.
 

Passionné

New Member
May 14, 2016
763
0
0
These fucking idiots Clinton and Obama were debating whether the Marines should be in their uniforms while Chris Stevens was murdered by the Terrorists.

Read carefully:

"United States military forces stationed in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time
". It would not have mattered what anyone did after it started. Your Republican head of the report made the statement above. It makes your statement false. Acting immediately would not have saved anyone according to Republican Representative Gowdy. The report blames the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department "for failing to grasp the acute security risks in the Libyan city". It accuses those departments of the same type of lack of security forethought Reagan's administration made when 241 Marines and 64 other military personnel and 6 civilians died in the Beirut Marine Barracks bombings in 1983 because suicide bombers could drive right into the building with very little resistance.

Regarding Clinton, as the report says there is "NO NEW EVIDENCE OF CULPABILITY OR WRONGDOING". Case CLOSED!

The article also says the Republicans put much more time into this subject than the 911 disaster. Why? When they ran the investigation in 2001 the Bush administration was in responsible for that tragedy.
 

daydreamer41

Active Member
Feb 9, 2004
2,722
2
36
NY State
Visit site
Read carefully:

"United States military forces stationed in Europe could not have reached Benghazi in time
". It would not have mattered what anyone did after it started. Your Republican head of the report made the statement above. It makes your statement false. Acting immediately would not have saved anyone according to Republican Representative Gowdy. The report blames the Defense Department, the Central Intelligence Agency and the State Department "for failing to grasp the acute security risks in the Libyan city". It accuses those departments of the same type of lack of security forethought Reagan's administration made when 241 Marines and 64 other military personnel and 6 civilians died in the Beirut Marine Barracks bombings in 1983 because suicide bombers could drive right into the building with very little resistance.

Regarding Clinton, as the report says there is "NO NEW EVIDENCE OF CULPABILITY OR WRONGDOING". Case CLOSED!

The article also says the Republicans put much more time into this subject than the 911 disaster. Why? When they ran the investigation in 2001 the Bush administration was in responsible for that tragedy.

Really? Please show me where your lies are written in that report?

You remind me of a someone else who used to come here and quote himself and say that represents FACT when it represents something you made up.

And are you quoting HRC when you say the report says no new evidence of culpability or wrongdoing?

I know it's hard for you to keep the attention to read but the report headline says:

Select Committee on Benghazi Releases Proposed Report
81 New Witnesses, 75,000 New Pages of Documents Reveal Significant New Information,

Fundamentally Changes the Public’s Understanding of the 2012 Terrorist Attacks that Killed Four Americans


I made it bigger for you so you can read it.
 

jalimon

I am addicted member
Dec 28, 2015
6,261
161
63
It's the first time in history that voters will heavily vote againsts the oponent. Meaning the highest % of Trump voters will vote for him not to have Clinton at the white house, and the opposite is even stronger! That is why we will have the first woman in the house. Crazy.

Anyhow I think that woman should rule in politics. Men have ruled politics of every country forever, it's time to give the complete reign to only woman. It's absolutely impossible that they do worst than men have done!

Cheers,
 

hungry101

Well-Known Member
Oct 29, 2007
5,842
549
113
It's the first time in histo

Anyhow I think that woman should rule in politics. Men have ruled politics of every country forever, it's time to give the complete reign to only woman. It's absolutely impossible that they do worst than men have done!

Cheers,

Ever have a woman boss?
 

Doc Holliday

Hopelessly horny
Sep 27, 2003
19,277
719
113
Canada
CHRIS STEVENS’S FAMILY: DON’T BLAME HILLARY CLINTON FOR BENGHAZI

by Robin Wright, The New Yorker

On Tuesday, the House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is controlled by a Republican majority, charged the Obama Administration with diplomatic miscalculations, security failures, and a lengthy delay in rescue efforts, which contributed to the deaths of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, after an attack on the United States Mission in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. Initially, the State Department believed that the attack was inspired by an anti-Muslim video. The Committee’s eight-hundred page report, which wraps up a two-year, seven-million-dollar investigation, specifically reprimanded the State Department, then under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton; the Pentagon, headed at the time by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; and the C.I.A.

In a separate, forty-eight-page addendum, two Republican Committee members, Mike Pompeo, of Kansas, and Jim Jordan, of Ohio, went even further, alleging that the Administration deliberately covered up the full truth about the attack at a time when President Obama was facing a tough reëlection campaign. “We expect our government to make every effort to save the lives of Americans who serve in harm’s way,” Pompeo said, in a statement. “That did not happen in Benghazi. Politics were put ahead of the lives of Americans.” At a press conference on Tuesday, Pompeo charged that Clinton’s actions on Benghazi were “morally reprehensible.”

Democrats on the House Committee released their own, three-hundred-and-thirty-nine-page report on Monday. They also cited “woefully inadequate” security in Benghazi. But they claimed to have been virtually shut out of the official Committee report. They called the probe, led by the South Carolina Republican Trey Gowdy, a witch hunt. “Gowdy has been conducting this investigation like an overzealous prosecutor desperately trying to land a front-page conviction rather than a neutral judge of facts seeking to improve the security of our diplomatic corps,” the report said.

There have been other investigations as well. Within the State Department itself, a review board examined the incident and found systemic security shortcomings and issued a series of recommendations for addressing them.

Dr. Anne Stevens, the sister of Ambassador Chris Stevens, has served as a family spokesperson since his death. She is the chief of pediatric rheumatology at Seattle Children’s Hospital. We spoke twice in the past three days, including shortly after the House Select Committee report was issued. Dr. Stevens recalled that her brother had been fascinated by the Middle East since childhood, when he dressed up as Lawrence of Arabia, with a towel and a pot atop his head. He served in the Peace Corps, in Morocco, before joining the Foreign Service, and he served twice in Libya before his final posting there, as well as in Damascus, Cairo, Jerusalem, and Riyadh. My interview with Dr. Stevens has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Whom do you fault for the lack of security that resulted in the death of your brother, in Benghazi?


It is clear, in hindsight, that the facility was not sufficiently protected by the State Department and the Defense Department. But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted.

I do not blame Hillary Clinton or Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself.

What did you learn from the two new reports by House Republicans and Democrats?


It doesn’t look like anything new. They concluded that the U.S. compound in Benghazi was not secure. We knew that.

What did you think of Secretary Clinton’s conduct on Benghazi?

She has taken full responsibility, being head of the State Department, for what occurred. She took measures to respond to the review board’s recommendations. She established programs for a better security system. But it is never going to be perfect. Part of being a diplomat is being out in the community. We all recognize that there’s a risk in serving in a dangerous environment. Chris thought that was very important, and he probably would have done it again. I don’t see any usefulness in continuing to criticize her. It is very unjust.

After years of congressional investigations, do you feel that your brother’s death has been politicized in Washington?

Yes! Definitely politicized. Every report I read that mentions him specifically has a political bent, an accusatory bent. One point that seems to be brought up again and again is the accusation that the attack was a response to the video. I could understand why that conclusion would be made, because it was right after the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Egypt. But, frankly, it doesn’t matter that that was the thinking, that night, about why the attack occurred. It’s irrelevant to bring that up again and again. It is done purely for political reasons.

It would be much more useful for Congress to focus on providing resources for security for all State Department facilities around the world—for increasing personnel, language capabilities, for increasing staff to build relationships, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East. I would love to hear they are drastically increasing the budget.

Did your brother ever talk about the risks in Libya?

Even before we had an Embassy in Tripoli, he fell in love with the land, the people, and the rich, rich history. He sent pictures. He saw the potential of Libya. When the revolution occurred, he was very optimistic about the future. He was happy to be involved, to be our special envoy in Benghazi for a year. He wanted to be part of this exciting prospect of a free Libya.

He did tell us about the dangers then. He told us about a car bomb that had shaken the hotel where he had offices in Benghazi. But, when he talked about incidents like that, he never showed any fear or reluctance to continue the work. He took danger in stride.

It was so important to have a U.S. presence in Benghazi and to show support for the American center being set up and other programs, such as the Benghazi Medical Center. We were helping them establish their new society. I don’t think we’ll ever know why he made the decision to take the risk of going to Benghazi, knowing there were multiple attacks. It was clearly a bad decision.

Did he ever talk about not having enough security?


He talked about his knowledge of the militias and the huge number of arms loose in Libya. That was one of his concerns and challenges. But he did not talk about that as a worry of his own security, which doesn’t mean he wasn’t concerned.

Are there any questions left in your mind about what happened, why the U.S. didn’t respond faster, why Washington didn’t do more?


The only questions that I have are not answerable by anyone investigated or questioned by the committee. My questions are about why the militiamen attacked the compound in the first place. What were their intentions? It’d be interesting to know that—and to hear what their views are and what they were thinking. It has nothing to do with what the State Department or the Defense Department was supposed to do that night. I think everyone did their very best in response to this event.

Do you think it’s fair to make Benghazi an election issue?

With the many issues in the current election, to use that incident—and to use Chris’s death as a political point—is not appropriate.

How would Chris have felt about this election?

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.
 

Doc Holliday

Hopelessly horny
Sep 27, 2003
19,277
719
113
Canada
It's the first time in history that voters will heavily vote againsts the oponent. Meaning the highest % of Trump voters will vote for him not to have Clinton at the white house, and the opposite is even stronger! That is why we will have the first woman in the house. Crazy.

Anyhow I think that woman should rule in politics. Men have ruled politics of every country forever, it's time to give the complete reign to only woman. It's absolutely impossible that they do worst than men have done!

Cheers,

I totally agree with this statement. The world would be much better if it were run by women. I have no doubt about this.
 

Doc Holliday

Hopelessly horny
Sep 27, 2003
19,277
719
113
Canada
Former Miss Universe Says Donald Trump Called Her ‘Miss Piggy,’ Forced Her to Exercise in Front of Reporters

by Gabriella Paeilla

Venezuela native Alicia Machado won the Miss Universe contest in 1996, the same year Donald Trump took over the pageant. But following her victory, she put on weight, leading some to speculate that she’d be stripped of her title (your regular reminder that pageants are gross). But she says it was Trump’s appalling behavior after her weight gain that affected her mental health and caused her to suffer from years of disordered eating.

Machado’s interview with Jim Moret on Inside Edition will air on Thursday night, but in a preview, she says that Trump regularly bullied her, calling her “Miss Piggy” and “Miss Housekeeping.” It somehow gets worse: Trump also called her an “eating machine” on the "Howard Stern" show , and told reporters, “She weighed 118 pounds or 117 pounds and she went to 160 or 170. So this is somebody that likes to eat.” The last bit was punctuated with a trademark Trump smirk, of course.

But perhaps the most disturbing part of Machado’s testimony is the video footage of the time Trump invited media outlets to watch and photograph her working out at the gym. As she told the New York Times, she mentioned to the president of Miss Universe that she wanted some help working out and eating more healthfully:

They took me to New York, installed me in a hotel. The next day, they took me to the gym, and I’m exposed to 90 media outlets. Donald Trump was there. I had no idea that would happen.

I was about to cry in that moment with all the cameras there. I said, “I don’t want to do this, Mr. Trump.” He said, “I don’t care.”

The gaggle of reporters frantically photographing Machado in what should have been a private setting is viscerally upsetting to watch.

At the end of all this, Machado gets the literal last laugh: She’s becoming a U.S. citizen and will be able to vote in the November election. When Moret asks her if she’d vote for Trump, she cracked up on camera. Hard same.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts