Hillary’s Benghazi Hearings: “Don’t Look at Me!”
What we learned from Hillary Clinton’s Congressional hearings on Benghazi was nothing. What was revealed was a combative, arrogant Secretary of State, who thinks she’s above reproach or accountability and was especially miffed she had to be questioned by members of Congress about why four Americans were killed at the US Consulate in Benghazi under her watch.
Hillary’s attitude toward the entire “Benghazi affair” is summed up well in her irritated response to Senator Ron Johnson’s (R-WI) question about what caused the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. “Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided they’d go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make?” she shouted.
For America’s Secretary of State to dismiss the cause of Libyan Ambassador Chris Stevens’ death and those of three other Americans as irrelevant is beyond shocking when her job is to ensure the safety of diplomats abroad as they pursue US policy. The reason why the cause of their deaths makes a DIFFERENCE is because Ambassador Stevens and other US diplomats sent numerous cables and emails warning the State Department security at the Benghazi consulate was inadequate.
It matters that the Obama administration mislead the American people from the start about the attack, suggesting for weeks, most notably through UN Ambassador Susan Rice, that the attack was caused by a spontaneous protest over an American produced anti-Muslim video. After killing Osama bin Laden, the Obama administration wanted us to believe the threat of al Qaeda and Islamic radicals was diminished but the Benghazi attack blew an inconvenient hole in the President’s narrative.
The CIA confirmed numerous times to Congress , including former CIA Director David Petraeus, the agency knew immediately the Benghazi attack was planned and implemented by terrorists. But the real “difference” this all makes is the State Department’s Accountability Review Board’s report, commissioned by Madame Hillary herself, concluded the attack on Benghazi resulted from the State Department’s gross negligence in security. Translation: “big screw up.”
This all makes a “difference” because it makes Secretary Clinton look incompetent. When she flippantly declared with a smirk during the Senate hearing that she couldn’t be bothered to read the 1.4 million cables that came through to the State Department last year, including those from Ambassador Stevens, Senator Rand Paul expressed the collective disgust of America.
“Had I been president at the time and I found that you did not read the cables from Benghazi, you did not read the cables form Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post,” said Senator Paul.
Despite Democrats in the Senate and House Foreign Relations Committee thanking Clinton for her “candor,” she showed none. Instead, Madame Secretary spent the entire day oozing contempt for Congress and distancing herself from blame.
“I wasn’t involved in the talking points process,” said Hillary before the Senate hearing and reiterated the “Intelligence community is the principle decider of talking points.” (Reminder: the talking points was the misinformation Susan Rice recited chapter and verse on several Sunday morning talk shows, declaring without question the Benghazi attack was caused by a protest. Of course this cost Rice Hillary’s job. )
Before the House, Madame Secretary threw the CIA under the bust again, saying “the intelligence community failed to recognize the threat in Benghazi.” I thought the State Department’s mission is to pursue American foreign policy and protect our interests abroad along with identifying threats to the US, thus making it part of our “intelligence community.”
The gist of Hillary’s testimony was “Don’t look at me, it wasn’t my fault.” But Hillary said last year as Secretary of State she would take full responsibility for Benghazi? Perhaps the stars in her eyes, contemplating a run for president in 2016, made her rethink all that Benghazi culpability stuff.
After hearing our Secretary of State drone on all day January 23, 2013, we, the American people, were left scratching our heads with more questions than answers on Benghazi and thank goodness Senator John McCain (R-AZ) had the guts to point that out.
“The answers, frankly, that you’ve given this morning are not satisfactory to me,” declared a testy Senator McCain.
Meanwhile Democrats couldn’t stop their effusive praise of Hillary for visiting over 100 countries. Traveling around world racking up frequent flier miles doesn’t make you a good Secretary of State but implementing effective foreign policy does! Democrats also kept praising Hillary during her hearings for doing “such a great job.” If the Secretary did such a great job, why are four diplomats dead and Islamic extremists and al Qaeda taking hold in Mali and other parts of North Africa?
“When America is absent, especially from unstable environments, there are consequences. Extremism takes root; our interests suffer; our security at home is threatened,” exclaimed Secretary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton couldn’t have described her job performance any better as chief promoter of Obama’s “absent” from the world, lead from behind foreign policy. It seems Hillary spent a lot of time flying around the world thinking about how great her travels would look on her 2016 presidential resume but little time on the basics of running the State Department. Bon Voyage Hillary!
You could not be more correct.
What is even more scary is how the Media reported Mrs. Clinton’s performance. They heaped praise on her and noted how “strong” she was and how she stood up to those mean old Republicans. Most Americans will get that twisted report from the media. The media has fallen in love with her, and want to help her be our next President. She is replacing President Obama as the object of their affection.
I was done with Hillary when I saw that she was not even strong enough to handle her own husband’s numerous womanizing. They were not affairs, they were womanizing – the women were just used by Bill and thrown away. Well each time, time after time, when Bill would hunt is next woman, Hillary’s handling of him would consist of, “Now Bill don’t do that again, I am warning you, no more this is your last warning”. This went on time after time. Wonder how that would work when another country is droping bombs on us? Now I am warning you, do not do that again.
The idea that the Queen of Darkness could be our next President should shake every true American to the bottom of their feet.
@ CBC
I think you nailed it. Not having enough money is a poor excuse for not keeping people safe. That’s one thing I can say for the W Bush administration. It had no problem spending money it didn’t have.
You just set her up for a perfect run in ’16.
“Look at all the work she had to do for Barack cause he wasn’t doing it. She was already acting like President!”
That being said I never expected anything to actually come out of this. She’s had a third of a year to prepare and the media just doesn’t care.
Inadequate funding? Congressperson and Senator just wave the proposed and passed budget before her and ask where in here did you ask for it? Would that help explain things and make a difference? That would be like the old ad, “where’s the beef.” But would probably hear, “help I’ve fallen and I can’t get up.”
Oops, I heard there hasn’t been a budget proposal passed in quite some time.
Hillary asks “What difference does it make???” and the press loves it! Wow, I care. And I bet their families care. Does that not reflect on how our government plans our future? Who cares? Anyone with a heart and anyone with a mind!
What Difference? = Who Cares? !!
Same old, same old. I’ve lived in Little Rock since the mid 80′s and observed she is long on power and ambition but short on character and credibility. Mrs. Clinton’s past is littered with Benghazi-esque incidents and unanswered questions such as Whitewater, Vince Foster and the removal of Whitewater documents from his White House office after his passing, missing Rose Law firm billing records magically appearing in the White House Map Room to name a few of the many. She is the ultimate Washington insider whose personal political ambition drives her job performance rather than her ability to lead, govern, and implement effective policy. A woman President…absolutely! Mrs. Clinton in that role…absolutely not!
What difference does it make that she is a contemptible liar (like her boss) who only thinks of herself. I don’t know how she can look the families of these victims of her selfish incompetence in the eyes. Much less herself in a mirror.
Saw “Argo” last night. One thing that made me crazy is that the same newspeople who radiated anger and contempt for Jimmy Carter and his incompetence are now licking the boots of Obama. What has changed?
@ Jeff,
I realized Hillary was married to the Prince of Darkness when he started quoting from the Bible in his 1992 democratic convention nomination acceptance speech. However I didn’t know that that makes her the queen of darkness …
Benghazi was not a defensible position and under the circumstances the Ambassador shouldn’t have been there. Benghazi was a mini 911 and let’s not forget on whose watch that occured.
President Obama said that the people that took the lives of 4 Americans at Bengahzi would be “brought to justice”. How is that going? Will that be in this lifetime or the next. It might help if you looked for them. Just a wild suggestion. Certainly you were not playing politics with the lives of 4 dead Americans, were you Mr. President.
Well said, again.
“We cannot mistake absolutism for principle, or substitute spectacle for politics, or treat name-calling as reasoned debate”, said Obama in his second inaugural speech.
Substitute spectacle for politics? Didn’t Hillary just do that during the Benghazi hearings? She made a spectacle of herself…no pun intended.
We cannot mistake absolutism (i.e. universally valid principles) for principle? So we must substitute subjectivism for principle? He seems to imply just that when he says in the same speech, “it does not mean we will all define liberty in exactly the same way”.
In the same speech, “preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action”.
No Mr. President it requires YOU and your government to act and protect one’s right to their property; that’s the proper role of government that you are trying to ignore when you say in the same speech,
“Progress does not compel us to settle centuries-long debates about the role of government for all time”.
The real question is what difference do these hearings make…???..She’s still running for president and these hearings will do nothing but cast her as the victim…The GOP still doesn’t get it but they will understand it better after they lose yet another presidential election..Maybe that’s why they are trying to change the way electoral votes are counted in certain states being that they know they cannot win an election fair and square…
@Truevoice Let’s see: these hearings don’t matter and besides the Republicans are trying to rig elections by modifying the electoral college…. I think you are changing the subject. The subject is: Obama and company are not governing well. Regardless of what the Republican sideshow is about, the Obama administration is not governing well, not governing well, not governing well. And they do not care about their citizens.
And the press is also doing nothing to get real debate. The absence of the press is getting very scarey!
We will need guns to defend ourselves from an oppressive government, the real argument for assault weapons and the real reason for the Second Amendment. I may have to join the NRA….
Well that’s your opinion all I know id that my 401K was cut in half when Bush was in office and now my 401K had not only recovered but is still going up ..Obama iook an economy that was headed for a depression and he turned the econmy around..DESPITE getting nothing but obstruction from ther GOP..You can com[lain all you want about Obama but he is light years better than Bush , McCain or Romney..Both McCain and Romney wanted to use the same stupud economuc policies that Bush used…that’s insanity at it’s best…And where was all this whining about the oppresive government when the inside job of 911 took place…”Our” government killd over 3000 innocent AMERICANS and then blame it on a country that had nothing to do with it..You sound very paraniod about the 2nd amnedment since nobody is coming after you guns iseless those guns are illehal…But since you think it’s cool to have assault weapons I may as well get some hand grenades and a rocket launcher..Because in your world the government is oppressive enough so I need to defend myself…Their weapons are much better than what you or I have so really what is yout point..???
Also since the republicans are showing their hand by trying voter suppression and changing the electoral count…what’s else are they doing that we don’t know about…??…
What Truevoice said!
I think, if you saw President Obama and Hillary on 60 Minutes, Sunday night, you saw Love in bloom. Watch out Michelle! Obama and Hillary are now 100% taken with each, in their own twisted way, they are in love. Watch the President eyes as he gazes at Hillary with that torn up hair and eyeglasses, as he annoints Hillary as, “the best Sec. of State, our Country has ever had”. What a laugh, these two are really scary.
@Truevoice Do you think we did 9-11 to ourselves?
I have been discussing since I thought you were rational. I apologize for the error.
Having said that, you are right about firepower, but still the Minutemen had their way with the Redcoats. Kind of fun watching your reaction …..
I still am not a Republican, so your name calling comments are pointless.
Hilary and Obama – wow two self centered, posturing egomaniacs. Unfortunately they are skillful politicians. Would that they would put similar efforts into solving our problems.
The Obama economy is a chimera. I have never been as afraid as I am now. Talk to me in 2016. Can’t tell if it will be inflation or depression, but am leaning toward inflation. See what that does to your 401K.
@truevoice
I was recently called a conservative, however I’m not sure what I should be called. I know I support socialized medicine. I do not believe in the supply side economic myths as I believe trickle down economics is more like trickle on economics. Does that mean I support legalized abortion and gay marriage? No I do not! As far as I am concerned, this whole “left vs right” struggle is nothing more than a game of smoke and mirrors hiding the truth.
The truth as I see it is that this is a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. That is set in stone in the Declaration of Independence and 87 years after the fact, Lincoln called it into question in the Gettysburg Address. Then another 90 plus years after that, MLK again questioned it in the “I Have a Dream” speech. This nation has all the documents in place to preserve liberty for ALL men. However you know as well as I that the historic track record leaves a lot to be desired.
As I see it, The Bill of Rights is a way to protect our liberty. I don’t believe 911 was an inside job, but after that, Congress passed law enabling the government to conduct searches without warrants on anybody they deemed a “terrorist”. Each member of Congress swears an oath to defend and protect the constitution from enemies both foreign and domestic. Nevertheless that Patriot Act or whatever you want to call it nullifies the 4th amendment for anybody deemed to be a terrorist. It’s easy to say, “Then just don’t be a terrorist and you won’t have any problems”. However who determines who is called a terrorist? I can be called a conservative. Does that make me one? When they first invaded Iraq, they had the audacity to call the Iraqis trying to stop them “terrorists”. After a week or so, they figured that wasn’t passing the smell test so they called them “insurgents” ever since. A few years ago Congress passed another law allowing the government to detain any US citizen deemed a terrorist indefinitely without right to a speedy trial (you know like they do in Guantanamo Bay for the non US citizens). Now this trashes the 6th amendment for anybody deemed a terrorist. Now personally, I don’t believe Obama would do anything like lock people up in concentration camps, but we just had an election that Romney could have won and I wouldn’t put anything past Romney. I mean we can’t even count on Romney to say the same thing at the end of the debate that he said in the beginning.
Voting rights are very precious. However what good is the right to vote when a person can’t get to the polls because he or she is locked up and his or her family can’t even petition the courts because the case is never even brought before a judge?
@jeff…McCain/Palin …Romney/Ryan ….Bush/Cheney were all walking horrors stories…Obama/Hillary is at best a little annoying but not scary like these other clowns…
@scott…So you believe the ever changing official version of 911..??..Just you a little common sense and als yourself how two buildings …correction two stell web desinged buildings can bith fall STRAIGHT DOWN from a fire that is burning out..???..I look at facts and evidence and all the feacts and evidence say that the government is lying about this…Here are a few wuestions and facts about 911…
Did you know that there were a large number of independent reports (many from firefighters who were familiar with such phenomena) indicating that people heard a collection of explosions, along with flashes, prior to the collapse of the twin towers — reports which are consistent with what is known as a “demolition ring” — that is a series of explosions running around a building during a controlled demolition or implosion?
Did you know that on the weekend of September 8th and 9th prior to September 11, 2001, there was a power down in the south tower of the WTC so that there was no power from floor 50 to the top of the building (over half of the tower) which means that this portion of the building was entirely without surveillance cameras or other forms of electronic security, and for about 35-36 hours there were many ‘engineers’ and ‘technicians’ who were going in and out of the building for some sort of ‘upgrading’ of the tower?
Did you know that both photographic and eyewitness testimony indicate that whatever struck the Pentagon on 9/11, it was not a Boeing 757 (American Airlines Flight 77, which supposedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, is a Boeing 757) because the size of the hole created in the Pentagon is not big enough to be consistent with being hit by a 757 jet liner, and the nature of the debris created by the impact is not consistent with the wreckage of a Boeing 757?
—————-
“With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. …
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country’s history.”
Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career
————
“Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?
I also personally knew American Airlines Captain “Chick” Burlingame, who was the captain of Flight 77 which allegedly hit the Pentagon, and I know he would not have given up his airplane to crazies!
And at the Shanksville Pennsylvania impact site, where is any of the wreckage?!!! Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane? Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel? Where is any evidence at all?
When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official “story”. …
Every question leads to another question that has not been answered by anyone in authority. This is just the beginning as to why I don’t believe the official “story” and why I want the truth to be told.”
Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy
@Truevoice right, sir! I believe there are conspiracies and all from the right and especially the bad Bush boys! thank God for Hillary and Obama to save us with their purity. Repetitions finally equal facts.
@ truevoice
I don’t believe the official story either. However they have actual film footage of at least one passenger airline flying into the tower. Why would the US pay somebody to hijack a plane? I know a lot of people didn’t show up for work so it would seem some people knew it was coming, but an inside job? Why would they do it? To have an excuse to take away our rights?
@Truevoice @Wes
absence of proof does not equal proof of absence. N. Taleb, “Antifragile”
you don’t know the answer and pick one out of the infinite possibilities and jump on it. That ain’t facts, that is inference. Inference is great for a theory, but not for conviction.
@scott…Come on Scott , just answer the questions and be honest…
Here’s a bonus…
William Rodriguez – WTC survivor. An American Building Maintenance employee for twenty years, responsible for inspection and maintenance at the World Trade Center
Regarding an explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center North Tower on 9/11, prior to any airplane impact. “When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking,” said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. … [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Rodriguez was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]
“Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above,” said Rodriguez. “Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion.”
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling “explosion! explosion! explosion!”
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
“He was burned terribly,” said Rodriguez. “The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn’t have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don’t care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.
“I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. …
“I disagree 100%with the government story,” said Rodriguez. “I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
“And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn’t have any answers.”
I assume you can contact him if you like ….
@wes…I have no idea why but the fact remains that they are lying to us…why are they lying and what occured after 911…who benefitted..???..who had the power to pull it off..??..who could order the FBI to confiscate all the cameras that viewed the pentagon.???..who could make sure flight 77 was lost in several rader stations for a number of mimutes..??..who could order all the steel from grond zero to be removed before any investigation..??..who could order the defense systems of the pentagon to be inactive “during an attack”…???..who could leave our fighters on the ground while planes were hiiting or in route to the twin towers and the pentagon…??..who could release the names of the 19 hostages minutes after the towers fell and also have at least 7 of these “terrorists still alive”…??…who could deny over 500 firefighters the right to testify only to have them sue the city of new york to get their voices heard..???…Do you really think Osama Bin Laden could have done any of that…???…be honest..
@ scott…”you don’t know the answer and pick one out of the infinite possibilities and jump on it. That ain’t facts, that is inference. Inference is great for a theory, but not for conviction.”
wrong my friend…there are answers but you just don’t like them..And the answers are all vack by evidence , proof and common sense…
Now answer the questions please…
@ truevoice
(sic)
@ scott…I know it’s hard …but facts and evidence don’t lie….that’s reserved for people that try to cover them up….with lies…be strong…and be honest…
@truevoice
Does this mean that you only distrust the republicans and these democrats are so naive to allow such treachery to go on under their noses; or does this mean you think the dems were aiding and abetting? This is important to me because it sounds like you are implying that we should assume that the dems are not up to anything sinister by trying to collect guns and we should trust that they are only concerned for the safety of the children. Logic says the police wouldn’t carry guns if what LaPierre says wasn’t true (The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F584p5kJL-U
The crash dummie in the video says that everybody for gun control can put a sign in the front yard saying so.
The gun control issue is much different..If these mass killers did not have assault weapons them some of the victims would be alive today..Nobody is going to take your guns away …but..Do you really think people need assault weapons..??..What’s next …hand grenades and rocket launchers…???…By the way , do you know what police say about assault weapons..??
Also , I distrust anybody that is trying to tell me that the official version of 911 is the truth…whether that person is democratic , republican , independent etc…I can understand that citizens don’t want to think of their government as being that evil …but facts are facts and the questions I laid out along with common sense evidence points to 911 being an inside job….research it for yourself and you will be hard pressed to believe what the government has been telling us…Also take a jab at the questions…I notice you didn’t do that…
Well, that grilling interview on 60 Minutes certainly cleared any doubts I had about President Obama and Sec of State Clinton. I just had no inkling that the world was such a dangerous place.
They certainly answered my questions on what happened and relieved me to know that the person in charge was unaware of the safety concerns of her subordinates.
We should all thank 60 Minutes for such a hard hitting interview. I guess the guys who uncovered Watergate and exposed 9-11 have a worthy heir!
A`good read on the lies that Condi Rice told the 9/11 commission to read the full piece : http://archive.truthout.org/article/condi-rice-911-and-another-nest-lies
Former Secretary of State Condo Rice may have committed perjury in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in May of 2004. At a minimum, her testimony was a convenient mishmash of half-truths and omissions which served to paint the White House as innocent bystanders as the attacks of 9/11 unfolded. Certainly, her testimony omitted the fact that the two most senior intelligence officials in the nation delivered a stern warning regarding an impending terror attack two full months before 9/11.
Sunday’s edition of the Washington Post carried a story titled “Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice.” The story described a desperate attempt by CIA chief George Tenet and CIA counterterrorism chief J. Cofer Black to draw Rice’s attention to the looming threat of an al-Qaeda strike against the United States. Tenet and Black insisted on a meeting with Rice on July 10, 2001. This meeting was first reported by Bob Woodward in his new book, “State of Denial.”
@ truevoice
I presume your last reply is to me because you specifically addressed the gun control issue. I did not address your reasons why you think the government was behind 911 because I preceded in the dialog under the presumption that your suspicions were correct. I cannot confirm nor deny that which has insufficient evidence to make a case one way or another. Therefore I bowed to your conclusions in the absence of any glaring reason not to do so. On the other hand you are presuming because someone of a certain political persuasion invents a class of weapon and calls them assault weapons that this particular class of weapon is a class that is not needed for whatever the founding fathers thought the people would need when they decided to make some sort of way to protect our rights. It’s like when the republicans attack your right to vote, you hear and become alarmed, but when either democrats or republicans attack your rights that help protect that right to vote, it doesn’t seem to concern you. Your first amendment right is good for do do without the 2nd, 3rd,4th 5th and 6th amendments to back it up. Bush had the power to stop the attack on the 4th amendment and he did not veto. Obama had the power to stop the attack on the 6th amendment and chose not to veto. One by one, the bill of rights are being taken away. If you think the government is capable of masterminding a 911 disaster for God only knows what reason, then you must certainly believe that it is, at the very least, plausible that some special interest is behind the abduction of our inalienable rights.
@scott
I did not see the interview on 60 minutes but I detect a hint of sarcasm.
@James
I happened to be listening to the radio the morning of 9-11. I’ll never forget Dan Rather reported that there were reports of smoke coming from the whitehouse. Obviously later reports were that one of the fatal flights was delayed and subsequently grounded (crashed or shot down) thereby making that report suggesting that the whitehouse too may have been hit suspicously in error.
@truevoice
I was just watching Jon Stewart interviewing Al Gore. He said it was time to take our democracy back from the special interests. I agree with the tone of his statement.
@wes….Assault weapons are not needed for personal use…Have you talked to or read anything about the reaction from police officers concerning assault weapons..??.. I disagree that our protection to have a right to vote is in trouble and do you really think the NRA is concerned about your safety or concerned about the gun manufactors..??..
@truevoice
Yes I have reviewed what the policemen have to say. I don’t think that there is a general consensus, but when one wants to be objective, one should always put oneself in another person’s shoes. If you were a policeman would you want to face military style weapons? I’m guessing they wouldn’t want to face weapons of any kind. If you want to keep grenades and bazookas and automatics weapons illegal, I don’t have a problem with that. However to make up a class of weapons, call them assault weapons and then decide these kinds of weapons are too lethal, well that only shows the true colors of the gun control movement.
I respect your right to disagree. However your reasoning to disagree does not appear to be based upon logical deduction. Every point raised by the crash dummy in the video is based on logical deduction, and you have only offered as a rebuttal, a feeling that he is wrong and that the nra’s motivation is based upon something other than protecting the rights of the people. I am not here to defend the nra. I am here to defend liberty. As a black person I tend to be somewhat paranoid about my rights. However I do not share a concern about the right to vote now because I am fully aware that BOTH sides are bought and paid for. This appears to be a matter that you appear to overlook when you reach the conclusion that your right to vote is more of a concern than all of the rights that protect that right are to you.
We all want people to be safe. Therefore the real question regarding gun control is if the people are safer in the gun free zones than they are where criminals aren’t sure who is armed and who is not. Clearly the less guns around the less likely someone will be accidently hurt or killed with a gun. However a criminal will generally attack an easy target.
@Wes last post nicely put. Another way to look at gun control: Number of People in Chicago ~= People in Utah. Chicago has great gun control laws. Utah has much lower level. Yet murder rate in Chicago is way greater than in Utah.
Obvious Factual conclusion: something other than direct legislation is involved.
The question becomes: what is that OTHER?
@wes…If cops think that assault weapons are a problem why are you complaining about your right to own a gun that is NOT an assault weapon..???..The right to vote is something that our ancestors died for so when a certain party tries to take that right away because they do not have the policies and common sense that may attract my vote then that party needs to be exposed…Also , as an Independent voter , my right to vote involves more than just two parties…Tell you what…Go to a gun show or walmart and buy a gun , then wait for the feds to come to your house and take that gun away from you…When that happens your point will make sense ….until that happens you are just over reacting about nothing…
@Truevoice
Remember the voice of Martin Niemoeller, German Intellectual and clergyman:
” First they came for the socialists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.”
It can’t happen here? Why are you so concerned about 9-11?
It is this aspect of the current administration that bothers me so much. I can live with socialism if that is what the informed majority wants. It is the willingness to lie and propagandize in order to undermine our freedoms that is scarey.
@ scott… I have no idea what you’re talking about…This is not nazi Germany and if those conditions were present , the GOP would surely be the party that is trying to take away your rights …such as voting..The iraq war was a lie…the 2000 election was a lie…the Birther movemnet is a lie…the official version of 911 is a lie…What are you copmplaining about…???…This president has done more for the country DESPITE REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION in 5 years than Bush did in 8 years…Considering the fact that he took over a sinking ship tells me that you have a personal axe to grind when it comes to this president…That’s why he got re-elected..Also , when you get a chance do two things…
1. Go to Walmart , buy some non -assault weapon type guns…and wait for the feds to break down your door and take you and the guns away…
2. Talk to dozens of police and ask them what they think about assault weapons….
Remember this from another Martin…
Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote in his autobiography:
“The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.”
That was his description of the 1964 Republican National Convention. He also referred to the Republican convention as “the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right.”
Now that’s scary…..
You tell them Truevoice
@Truevoice I guess I have to spell out the analogy.
Canons are the socialists…
Assault weapons are the Jews…
All guns will be last on the list…
Come on, you are so good at inference.
Then how do you go from “this is not Nazi Germany” to the Republicans are….? That is typical liberal changing the subject, followed by slanderous accusations. Besides which you have NEVER heard me defend the Republicans. I am afraid of big government by Republicans or Democrats.
Your points just for fun:
All citizens should be allowed to vote. I wish the rule said all taxpayers, but it does not. In my view, any person who speaks any version of American English should be considered a citizen “a priori”. For the record, I think that includes those Americans from native Spanish speaking areas such as Arizona and New Mexico. I do think ID is do-able but that is another debate.
I do wonder about the Iraq war, but regard it as the result of over zealous wanting it to be, not malicious intent. Perhaps even stupidity. The war was a disaster from justification to execution to expectations of results.
Can’t answer the 2000 election, there were many democrats there trying to work it their way, too. Both parties are guilty of gerrymandering.
Birther – unbelievable idiocy. Note that Obama meets my “citizens by dialect criteria.” Birthers are in the same category as 9-11 conspirator theorists…. and end-of-the-world people.
The Bush financial mess: Much of the the current financial problem, I submit, goes back to the policy of “Equal Lending.” That forced banks to lend to people who they knew could not pay. If you were forced to lend money to a non-credible person, you would try to off load it, too. The banks were creative in doing so. The regulatory environment had to have changed. Like so many things it is not one step to the problem or solution. And yes the banks were immoral. When asked to lend to people of poor credit risk, they should have closed their business. Think about that Mr. Logic.
Further on Financial Mess. No one seems to remember that the stock market tanked the first year of Bush’s term and climaxed down right near 9-11-2001. Bush’s answer of starting a war using credit was a disastrous choice. But the economy was already having problems when he took over. Read Robert Prechter for some thoughts on this aspect of things.
Let’s not forget that for two years, Obama had NO effective Republican opposition. His policies led directly to a Tax Protest Group for their overwhelming lack of concern for the common man.
Personal Axe: hmm, I can honestly say I voted for him first term. Do not like his policies and you have never heard me attack him personally. I feel you are accusing me of something you seem to be doing. An argument technique called deflecting.
MLK: a great man, who probably stopped a civil war. His characterization of the Republican party is spot on. They were hi-jacked by the Radical Religious Right. And it became obvious to the bigoted KKK types that they were not going to have a voice in the Democratic party, where they had been very welcome for many years. Up until that era, Republicans were a party of moderate social conservatism – and very similar in platform to the Democratic party.
In my view the hijacking of the Republican party led them to tolerating an extreme view. That in turn led to the liberals hijacking the Democratic party. Now we have two relatively extreme groups in charge with the Democrats winning the propaganda wars. I think basically because it is easy to sell one step high sounding ideas, even if they do not always work in human society.
@James agree Bush administration could well have been negligent reading the signs. no one believed we were vulnerable. kind of like Clinton…
How do we square this with @Truevoice contention that 9-11 was a Bush conspiracy?
@scott…I didn’t say 911 was a Bush conspiracy…I said it was an inside job….By the way , I notice you could not dispute the evidence I posted…Is this you way of waving a white flag…
@Truevoice no it is my way of saying it is so off the wall that it is not worth discussing. There is a major difference in conspiracies and thing coming together in a bad way.
Who do you think did the “inside job?”
Why?
Don’t bother to answer, those are rhetorical…. maybe I am meeting one definition of insanity…..
@scott…This is what I said…”This is not nazi Germany and if those conditions were present , the GOP would surely be the party that is trying to take away your rights …such as voting”…Right now the GOP with it’s white supremacist support is the closet thing to Nazi Germany…don’t you agree..???
Republicans spread a lot of lies about Obama therefore when it seems as though you follow suit i take that as having an axe to grind..Correct me if I’m wrong but the president did not have two years of non republican obstruction…At best he had maybe five minutes…The GOP used record breaking filbusters in the Senate and launched the propagnada campaign through the useless tea party…Also Ted Kennedy died in the simmer of 2008…Scott Brown got elected in early 2009 and the super majority in the senate was gone…Therefore Obama had less then a year to push things..
The banks really messed up the country but what is interesting is that the GOP DID NOT WHAT TO REGULATE THEM…now why is that..??
By the way , Birthers are not in the same breath as people that question the official version of 911…I posted facts that back up what I say abpout 911…where are your facts..??..If they are enclosed in the official version of 911 them you have no clue what happened that day….To this day the there is still no reasonable answer for the “fall”….correction…”free fall” of WTC7….Do some honest research on the subject and I guarantee you that you will have to change your mind…
The 2000 “stoelection” has noting to do with gerrymandering…The Supreme court selected Bush and stopped the vote count…now why is that..??..And why did the state of Florida move certain polling places the DAY OF THE ELECTION…Hundreds of Black voters were denied the right to vote in Florida…That’s not gerrymandering that’s outright stealing…And for you to suggest that the GOP did not steal that election is defending republicans….Check out these names…Clint Curtis , Brice Fynk , Athan Gibbs…
In terms of who can govern better I think it’s clear that the current crop of republicans are not concerned with governing.,…They are only concerned with stopping Obama….that’s not propaganda because they even admit it , which is amazing in itself since the GOP lies about almost everything…Sorry Scott but I don’t trust these guys for one minute…
@scott…Look at ALL the evidence before you make a rash judgement on those that question 911…I posted eye witness accounts and several questions that have gone unanswered…Don’t tell me that I’m insane if you can’t dispute the facts I posted…There are a lot of peope in government , on politics ( from both parties) , in the science community , in foreign countries , in fire protection and law enforcement etc…They all understnad that what we are being told does not add up…Why are you ignoring their concerns….especially when you can’t answer their questions….
Here’s something you can think about…
We were told that 19 hijackers took over 4 planes…Where is the video tapes of the hijackers going through security..????..This question was asked by a number of people and the best answer we got was a video of two men in Dulles that were pointed out in the video but the tape had NO TIME STAMP OR DATE ON IT…..Insanity is also belieivng the same lie even after it is proven to be a lie….Are you insane Scott…??
@Truevoice
OK – white supremacists exist. they want to take over the Republican Party. They have not done so. By a long shot.
The Democratic party is totalitarian in that is allows no debate without vilification and belittling the debaters. They use propaganda to change public opinion. Look at the editing by NBC of some videos in the past year. Liberals want to impose their view in spite of current law.
Think you are picking nits about filibustering. Notice you feel the need to call the Tea Party “useless,” a pejorative term, not based on facts. I found them pretty useful since they pointed out the tax ramifications of the Health Care package which the Democrats passed over all that filibustering “so that they could read it.”
Bush did try to deal with the banks, but got nowhere. Clinton did nothing about them at all.
You seem to blame everything on the Republicans, yet the Democrats have been in the White House 12 of the last 20 years. Can’t pull congressional percentages out of my head, but basically, the Republicans are a minority party. Even if evil, how do they have so much effect? At least they want to change laws (mostly), not ignore them.
Why does no one look at the corruption of the Democrats? Both parties are bad.
Most of your arguments to me seem to relate me to Republicans. Why?