Senate Intel Committee Report: Benghazi Deaths Could Have Been Preven

WestCoastRunner · January 31, 2014

I can certainly imagine Hillary as POTUS. And I say that in a complimentary way. WWWTT, I'm guessing your comment was a negative remark? And if so, why?

GostHacked · January 31, 2014

I can certainly imagine Hillary as POTUS. And I say that in a complimentary way. WWWTT, I'm guessing your comment was a negative remark? And if so, why?

Clinton is damaged goods. Her handling of the Benghazi incident proves that she is not mentally fit for office.

WestCoastRunner · January 31, 2014

The latest report leaves no doubt that the americans died as a result of negligence and bad judgement at the highest levels of the state department for which Hillary was ultimately responsible for but do you seriously think this will stop Hillary from getting elected if she decides to run? Most republicans have accepted that the mainstream media have decided there is not much more here to report on, especially considering the lack of interest.

If the Benghazi report is the best the republicans can do, they better start digging up more dirt.

GostHacked · January 31, 2014

It wont stop her, because people are stupid, or the game is rigged. People have short attention spans as well. People are interested in cat videos, or celebrities, not the terrible acts of idiocy their government is taking part in.

Michael Hardner · January 31, 2014

The latest report leaves no doubt that the americans died as a result of negligence

Leaves no doubt ? How so ? Link please.

As I have said, this reminds me of the calls for Bush to resign because they 'had warning about 9/11'. Out of the context of security operations, there can be no certainty. And we can't see that context for security reasons.

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2014

Much ado about nothing. Benghazi chatter is just 2016 election campaign foreplay. President Reagan was easily re-elected in 1984 despite the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Ms. Clinton will have plenty of other (and more difficult) obstacles than Benghazi.

Michael Hardner · January 31, 2014

Ms. Clinton will have plenty of other (and more difficult) obstacles than Benghazi.

Astute. The political trail is a marathon. In the example of the 2012 US Presidential election, everybody should remember the Banes and Cains that were thrown at Mitt along the way but we all knew he would be the candidate, and nobody could have predicted what might sink him during the campaign.

bush_cheney2004 · January 31, 2014

Astute. The political trail is a marathon. In the example of the 2012 US Presidential election, everybody should remember the Banes and Cains that were thrown at Mitt along the way but we all knew he would be the candidate, and nobody could have predicted what might sink him during the campaign.

It really is that way, with a grueling campaign gauntlet that separates the contenders from the pretenders.

On Guard for Thee · February 1, 2014

Clinton is damaged goods. Her handling of the Benghazi incident proves that she is not mentally fit for office.

And Chris "bridgegate" Christie is?

I bet Hillary is giggling to herself with the idea that the GOP selects him.

cybercoma · February 1, 2014

Hillary won't be the democrats candidate. Too much baggage.

February 1, 2014

Hillary won't be the democrats candidate. Too much baggage.

John Kerry perhaps?

cybercoma · February 1, 2014

Doubt that as well.

WestCoastRunner · February 1, 2014

Hillary has broad democratic support across ideological, gender, ethnic and class lines. Not only that, her lead is the largest in an early primary lineup in 30 years (post ABC polling). The latest polls show her with 3/4 support from men and women, whites and non-whites, young and old, as well as lower and higher income voters.

On the other hand, the race for the republican nomination is wide open with possibly 6 candidates registering 10 to 20 percent. No candidate has broad backing from tea party activists or mainline republicans.

Perhaps there may be a dark horse in either party but as it stands now, Hillary will be the next POTUS.

bush_cheney2004 · February 1, 2014

Hillary Clinton thought she had things in the bag for the 2008 campaign, but was defeated for her party's nomination by a virtual unknown. In U.S. politics, race trumps gender (previously discussed here as well).

February 1, 2014

Doubt that as well.

Why? If one assume Biden and Clinton to also be in the fold, Kerry should be in included…….Of the three, in my view, Kerry is the most accomplished.

Bonam · February 1, 2014

Hillary Clinton thought she had things in the bag for the 2008 campaign, but was defeated for her party's nomination by a virtual unknown. In U.S. politics, race trumps gender (previously discussed here as well).

Perhaps time for an Asian president, then?

sharkman · February 1, 2014

Much ado about nothing. Benghazi chatter is just 2016 election campaign foreplay. President Reagan was easily re-elected in 1984 despite the 1983 Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon. Ms. Clinton will have plenty of other (and more difficult) obstacles than Benghazi.

I concur that it will probably turn out to be a non starter if used against Hillary in 2016, unless evidence connecting her more strongly forces the media to cover it. She will be their darling, much like Obama was. When Obama was caught talking about bitter Gods and gun clingers, I really thought it was over for him. When he was quoted in his famous "spread the wealth" comment with Joe the plumber and the media attacked Joe, you could see the writing on the wall. Later, when he was recorded saying to the Russian politician that he could negotiate more freely after the election, I knew it wouldn't matter, he could say just about anything that would sink a Rep, and get away with it.

cybercoma · February 1, 2014

Why? If one assume Biden and Clinton to also be in the fold, Kerry should be in included…….Of the three, in my view, Kerry is the most accomplished.

I just don't see the race panning out that way. It seems unlikely to me that Democrats will now pick the same people they rejected years ago.

GostHacked · February 1, 2014

I just don't see the race panning out that way. It seems unlikely to me that Democrats will now pick the same people they rejected years ago.

It will have to be an unknown like Obama was.

WestCoastRunner · February 1, 2014

Hillary Clinton thought she had things in the bag for the 2008 campaign, but was defeated for her party's nomination by a virtual unknown. In U.S. politics, race trumps gender (previously discussed here as well).

Seriously, race trumps gender? You are clearly in the dark ages. I think you may be in for a surprise.

bush_cheney2004 · February 1, 2014

Seriously, race trumps gender? You are clearly in the dark ages. I think you may be in for a surprise.

The "dark ages" were very recent....as in 2008...seriously.

WestCoastRunner · February 1, 2014

Seriously, why are you so condescending? If this board wants to attract a diverse group of members, including female, I suggest the tones should change towards women. I don't see a lot of female members around here. Sounds like a bunch of middle aged, biased white men.

bush_cheney2004 · February 1, 2014

Seriously, why are you so condescending?

Hmmm...let's see...your response has me living in the "dark ages" and "in for a surprise". Who is condescending ?

If this board wants to attract a diverse group of members, including female, I suggest the tones should change towards women. I don't see a lot of female members around here. Sounds like a bunch of middle aged, biased white men.

If it makes you feel any better, I am not a "white" man. But I am an American, who has been voting since Nixon was in office, and I know what the state primary election voting demographics were in 2008, with Mr. Obama carrying the so called "black vote" treasured by Democrats over Ms. Clinton. Hence "race trumps gender".

Nothing special about gender here...man or woman or whatever. Welcome aboard and fasten your seatbelt...the ride can be bumpy.

February 2, 2014

I just don't see the race panning out that way. It seems unlikely to me that Democrats will now pick the same people they rejected years ago.

That's a fair point, but isn't fully inclusive (Nixon, Reagan, Bush sr etc), who is your money on?

cybercoma · February 2, 2014

I don't know. I haven't given it much thought. It could be any of the people you said, but it doesn't seem to be right. Hillary has way too much baggage and Kerry just doesn't have a strong enough presence, I think. We'll see what happens.