Feisty Clinton: We're strengthening embassy security
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton delivered fiery rejoinders Wednesday to Republican critics of the Obama administration's handling of the deadly attack on a U.S. mission in Benghazi, facing off with lawmakers who included potential 2016 presidential rivals.
At times emotional and frequently combative, Clinton rejected GOP suggestions in two congressional hearings that the administration tried to mislead the country about the Sept. 11 attack that killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans. She insisted the State Department is moving swiftly and aggressively to strengthen security at diplomatic posts worldwide.
In her last formal testimony before Congress as America's top diplomat - but perhaps not her last time on the political stage - Clinton once again took responsibility for the department's missteps and failures leading up to the assault. But she also said that requests for more security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi didn't reach her desk, and reminded lawmakers that they have a responsibility to fund security-related budget requests.
Three weeks after her release from a New York hospital - admitted for complications after a concussion - Clinton was at times defiant, complimentary and willing to chastise lawmakers during more than 5 ½ hours of testimony before two separate committees. She tangled with some who could be rivals in 2016 if she decides to seek the presidency again.
Her voice cracking at one point, Clinton said the attack and the aftermath were highly personal tragedies for the families of the victims who died - Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty - as well as herself.
"I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters and the wives left alone to raise their children," she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a packed hearing.
Clearly annoyed with Republican complaints about the initial explanation for the attack, she rose to the defense of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was vilified for widely debunked claims five days after the attack that protests precipitated the raid rather than terrorism.
Clinton said, "People were trying in real time to get to the best information." And she said her own focus was on looking ahead on how to improve security rather than revisiting the talking points and Rice's comments.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed her on why "we were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that."
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," she said, her voice rising and quivering with anger as she and Johnson spoke over each other.
"Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
If Johnson's comments drew an irritated response from Clinton, she notably ignored Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., when he said he would have fired her if he had been in charge and found that she had not read cables from her team in Libya asking for more security. Paul is a potential 2016 presidential candidate.
"Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post," Paul said. "I think it's inexcusable."
Clinton and other officials have testified that requests for additional security did not reach her level, and a scathing independent review of the matter sharply criticized four senior State Department officials who have been relieved of their duties.
"I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them," she said.
Later, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina repeatedly challenged Clinton's claim to have looked at the tragedy with "clear eyes," saying she should have personally ensured security at the mission.
He said Clinton had "let the consulate become a death trap" in denying requests for additional security and called it "malpractice."
Clinton said she could have let the review board's report remain classified and told Congress "goodbye" before leaving office. But she said, it's "not who I am. It's not what I do."
Absent from the Senate hearing was Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the man tapped to succeed Clinton, who is leaving the administration after four years. Kerry, defeated by George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, is expected to win swift Senate approval. Clinton is to introduce him at his confirmation hearing on Thursday.
Politics play an outsized role in any appearance by Clinton, who was defeated by Barack Obama in a hard-fought battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. She is the subject of constant speculation about a possible bid in 2016.
A former New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, she is a polarizing figure but is ending her tenure at the State Department with high favorability ratings. A poll last month by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found 65 percent of Americans held a favorable impression of her, compared with 29 percent unfavorable.
On the panel at the Senate hearing were two possible 2016 Republican presidential candidates - Florida's Marco Rubio and Paul, a new member of the committee - as well as John McCain of Arizona, who was defeated by Obama in November 2008.
Clinton, 65, did little to quiet the presidential chatter earlier this month when she returned to work after her hospitalization. On the subject of retirement, she said, "I don't know if that is a word I would use, but certainly stepping off the very fast track for a little while."
In a second round of questioning on Wednesday, Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee where Republican members pressed her on why cables and other memos about security deficiencies in Benghazi seemed to be ignored.
"The dots here were connected ahead of time. The State Department saw this was coming," said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the chairman of the panel. "The State Department didn't act."
Clinton told senators the department is implementing the 29 recommendations of the review board and going beyond the proposals, with a special focus on high-threat posts.
"Nobody is more committed to getting this right," she said. "I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure."
Clinton had been due to testify in December but postponed her appearances after fainting, falling and suffering a concussion while recovering from a stomach virus that left her severely dehydrated. She was then diagnosed with a blood clot near her brain and returned to work only on Jan. 7.
She won bipartisan well-wishes on her recovery, but while Democrats were quick to praise her for accomplishments as secretary of state, Republicans then hit her with withering criticism.
"It's wonderful to see you in good health and combative as ever," said McCain.
But in the same breath, he dismissed her explanation of events, the administration's response to warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Libya and even the attention paid to Libya after rebels toppled Moammar Gadhafi. "The answers, frankly, that you've given this morning are not satisfactory to me," McCain said.
To McCain, a friend that Clinton served with in the Senate, she replied matter-of-factly: "We just have a disagreement. We have a disagreement about what did happen and when it happened with respect to explaining the sequence of events."
Some Democrats raised the point that Congress had cut funding for embassy security.
"We have to get our act together," she told the panels, chiding House GOP members for recently stripping $1 billion in security aid from the hurricane relief bill and the Senate panel for failing for years to produce a spending authorization bill.
In something of a valedictory, Clinton noted her robust itinerary in four years and her work, nearly 1 million miles and 112 countries.
"My faith in our country and our future is stronger than ever. Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "United States of America" touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor it is to represent the world's indispensable nation. And I am confident that, with your help, we will continue to keep the United States safe, strong, and exceptional."
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., expressed incredulity that the independent review board did not interview Clinton for its extensive report. She also complained about the department's "false narrative" that four employees lost their jobs over the attack.
"There's just been a shuffling of the deck chairs," said Ros-Lehtinen.
Clinton said earlier that she was not asked to speak to the review board but would have been available. She said the four employees have been removed from their jobs and have been placed on administrative leave, but federal rules prevent the department from taking more drastic steps.
Her testimony followed more than three months of Republican charges that the Obama administration ignored signs of a deteriorating security situation and cast an act of terrorism as mere protests over an anti-Muslim video in the heat of a presidential election. U.S. officials suspect that militants linked to al-Qaida carried out the attack.
At times emotional and frequently combative, Clinton rejected GOP suggestions in two congressional hearings that the administration tried to mislead the country about the Sept. 11 attack that killed Chris Stevens, the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans. She insisted the State Department is moving swiftly and aggressively to strengthen security at diplomatic posts worldwide.
In her last formal testimony before Congress as America's top diplomat - but perhaps not her last time on the political stage - Clinton once again took responsibility for the department's missteps and failures leading up to the assault. But she also said that requests for more security at the diplomatic mission in Benghazi didn't reach her desk, and reminded lawmakers that they have a responsibility to fund security-related budget requests.
Three weeks after her release from a New York hospital - admitted for complications after a concussion - Clinton was at times defiant, complimentary and willing to chastise lawmakers during more than 5 ½ hours of testimony before two separate committees. She tangled with some who could be rivals in 2016 if she decides to seek the presidency again.
Her voice cracking at one point, Clinton said the attack and the aftermath were highly personal tragedies for the families of the victims who died - Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty - as well as herself.
"I stood next to President Obama as the Marines carried those flag-draped caskets off the plane at Andrews. I put my arms around the mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers, sons and daughters and the wives left alone to raise their children," she told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a packed hearing.
Clearly annoyed with Republican complaints about the initial explanation for the attack, she rose to the defense of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was vilified for widely debunked claims five days after the attack that protests precipitated the raid rather than terrorism.
Clinton said, "People were trying in real time to get to the best information." And she said her own focus was on looking ahead on how to improve security rather than revisiting the talking points and Rice's comments.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., pressed her on why "we were misled that there were supposedly protests and something sprang out of that, an assault sprang out of that."
"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," she said, her voice rising and quivering with anger as she and Johnson spoke over each other.
"Was it because of a protest? Or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they would go kill some Americans? What difference, at this point, does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator."
If Johnson's comments drew an irritated response from Clinton, she notably ignored Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., when he said he would have fired her if he had been in charge and found that she had not read cables from her team in Libya asking for more security. Paul is a potential 2016 presidential candidate.
"Had I been president and found you did not read the cables from Benghazi and from Ambassador Stevens, I would have relieved you of your post," Paul said. "I think it's inexcusable."
Clinton and other officials have testified that requests for additional security did not reach her level, and a scathing independent review of the matter sharply criticized four senior State Department officials who have been relieved of their duties.
"I did not see these requests. They did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them," she said.
Later, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan of South Carolina repeatedly challenged Clinton's claim to have looked at the tragedy with "clear eyes," saying she should have personally ensured security at the mission.
He said Clinton had "let the consulate become a death trap" in denying requests for additional security and called it "malpractice."
Clinton said she could have let the review board's report remain classified and told Congress "goodbye" before leaving office. But she said, it's "not who I am. It's not what I do."
Absent from the Senate hearing was Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., the man tapped to succeed Clinton, who is leaving the administration after four years. Kerry, defeated by George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election, is expected to win swift Senate approval. Clinton is to introduce him at his confirmation hearing on Thursday.
Politics play an outsized role in any appearance by Clinton, who was defeated by Barack Obama in a hard-fought battle for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. She is the subject of constant speculation about a possible bid in 2016.
A former New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, she is a polarizing figure but is ending her tenure at the State Department with high favorability ratings. A poll last month by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found 65 percent of Americans held a favorable impression of her, compared with 29 percent unfavorable.
On the panel at the Senate hearing were two possible 2016 Republican presidential candidates - Florida's Marco Rubio and Paul, a new member of the committee - as well as John McCain of Arizona, who was defeated by Obama in November 2008.
Clinton, 65, did little to quiet the presidential chatter earlier this month when she returned to work after her hospitalization. On the subject of retirement, she said, "I don't know if that is a word I would use, but certainly stepping off the very fast track for a little while."
In a second round of questioning on Wednesday, Clinton testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee where Republican members pressed her on why cables and other memos about security deficiencies in Benghazi seemed to be ignored.
"The dots here were connected ahead of time. The State Department saw this was coming," said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., the chairman of the panel. "The State Department didn't act."
Clinton told senators the department is implementing the 29 recommendations of the review board and going beyond the proposals, with a special focus on high-threat posts.
"Nobody is more committed to getting this right," she said. "I am determined to leave the State Department and our country safer, stronger, and more secure."
Clinton had been due to testify in December but postponed her appearances after fainting, falling and suffering a concussion while recovering from a stomach virus that left her severely dehydrated. She was then diagnosed with a blood clot near her brain and returned to work only on Jan. 7.
She won bipartisan well-wishes on her recovery, but while Democrats were quick to praise her for accomplishments as secretary of state, Republicans then hit her with withering criticism.
"It's wonderful to see you in good health and combative as ever," said McCain.
But in the same breath, he dismissed her explanation of events, the administration's response to warnings about the deteriorating security situation in Libya and even the attention paid to Libya after rebels toppled Moammar Gadhafi. "The answers, frankly, that you've given this morning are not satisfactory to me," McCain said.
To McCain, a friend that Clinton served with in the Senate, she replied matter-of-factly: "We just have a disagreement. We have a disagreement about what did happen and when it happened with respect to explaining the sequence of events."
Some Democrats raised the point that Congress had cut funding for embassy security.
"We have to get our act together," she told the panels, chiding House GOP members for recently stripping $1 billion in security aid from the hurricane relief bill and the Senate panel for failing for years to produce a spending authorization bill.
In something of a valedictory, Clinton noted her robust itinerary in four years and her work, nearly 1 million miles and 112 countries.
"My faith in our country and our future is stronger than ever. Every time that blue and white airplane carrying the words "United States of America" touches down in some far-off capital, I feel again the honor it is to represent the world's indispensable nation. And I am confident that, with your help, we will continue to keep the United States safe, strong, and exceptional."
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., expressed incredulity that the independent review board did not interview Clinton for its extensive report. She also complained about the department's "false narrative" that four employees lost their jobs over the attack.
"There's just been a shuffling of the deck chairs," said Ros-Lehtinen.
Clinton said earlier that she was not asked to speak to the review board but would have been available. She said the four employees have been removed from their jobs and have been placed on administrative leave, but federal rules prevent the department from taking more drastic steps.
Her testimony followed more than three months of Republican charges that the Obama administration ignored signs of a deteriorating security situation and cast an act of terrorism as mere protests over an anti-Muslim video in the heat of a presidential election. U.S. officials suspect that militants linked to al-Qaida carried out the attack.
Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis - Hilary's personal Ken Starr........looked like a total tool after she ripped him a new one.
All this from the party in charge at 9-11 attacks. All the intel was there to stop the attacks, Condoleeza just forgot to tell anyone. Get off yer high horse Repubs
She asked back what does it matter now because we have the four dead Americans??? It is the fact that the Americans died on your watch and you did nothing beforehand and have done everything since to miss lead the American public about what you know when. That is why it matters. Your inability to protect them when they were asking for help (prior) and then sitting on your hands during and then covering it all up and shielding the one who is truly responsible is the problem. And KOMO and the other news outlets are in just as deep with the cover up.
People seem to forget the whole "White Water" affair. I do not trust Hilliary and I have the distinct feeling that the Democrats are preparing her for the next election. If you think Obama is bad, wait till she gets back into the oval office. And oh, I haven't trusted any of the past Republican nominations either.
 @Zanshin If that's the best they got. we should be fine. I just don't think she'd be elected President of the United States.
I would like to request a song and dedicate it to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The song is by The castaways,called "Liar,Liar" .Â
This was all theatrics aimed at making her look like the poor victim. It's what liberals do when they're caught red handed. LIE LIE LIE. You people who idolize Hillary Clinton are a bunch of lemmings. People like her are why America is on the decline. It's a planned strategy. You just re-elected her boss thinking you'll get something different. You won't. It'll be more blaming the republicans for their own failings, and the liberal media lapping it up like warm milk. Pathetic.
 @Scott Collier Her husband did the exact same thing when he was caught with his pants down.
 @Scott Collier skip your meds this morning, did you?Â
 @tufa23 I don't think Scott "skipped his meds" this morning. People are getting tired of political theater. Citizens are really starting to see the nonsense going on in both political sides of the spectrum.Â
I have been watching the hearing, and have been as impressed with her ability to answer the questions as I have been disgusted by some of the Republican "questioning"...in particular the one who was rabid to have "those responsible" booted without following the laws that required laws and procedures to actually DETERMINE if they were actually "responsible"...and I think he was the same Republican idiot who kept harping on the use of the "al Quada' flag at many locations - as if al Quada is somehow running all of the terrorist operations in the entire world...when it should be obvious to any thinking person that these groups simply adopt the flag to claim more substance than they warrant, and al Quada hasn't bothered to object.
It was a political attack by an irresponsible TP member of Congress.
I think that we are all tired of the Hill-Billy side show from Arkansas.
 @MonroeMad You would be mistaken, have you looked at her approval rating lately? Beats the hell out of the approval rating for anyone in congress.
Hey, it's only one Ambassador and a few Marines that lost their lives. The main goal is to shield BO and his failed and miserable policies and indifference to what really matters in this country. And besides he was too busy giving his support of gay marriage interview at the time. Priorities people priorities!!!!!
Still waiting for the Republicans to be outraged over the 1000x of Americans killed in Iraq when Bush invaded the wrong country.
Â
Oops right, his bad. Let's give old Bush a pass for that one. They were just poor rural Americans anyway and Fox News didn't tell me to be mad about it.Â
Yep, Liberals were reading the same intelligence reports and signed on to the Iraq War, but they get a pass because they turned around and pretend they opposed it.
Iraq was an international state sponsor of terrorism and ruled by the mass-murderer and war criminal Saddam Hussein. His use of nerve gas against the Kurds and Iranians are fact.Â
Democrats are all OK with that, and if they could make it so Saddam Hussein and his killing fields would be going as strong as ever.
Like for Saddam's Air Force, I suspect much of Hussein's WMD program was evacuated to Syria and/ or Iran before the U.S. defeated Iraq. Some day, perhaps when Baby Assad has been overthrown and pays for his many crimes, we'll learn the truth about what happened to the Iraqi WMD program.
Â
@lakeview "
Still waiting for the Republicans to be outraged over the 1000x of Americans killed in Iraq when Bush invaded the wrong country."
Not to mention the close to 100,000 Iraqis who died as a result...AND the criminal abandonment of the JUSTIFIED war in Afghanistan against the people who ACTUALLY attacked us on 9/11...
 @OrcasThunder  @lakeview Bush was an idiot. But answer me this...How come this has not been on our news media outlets? (mind me this has been in the making for some time) Four F-16 fighter jets left the U.S. yesterday morning (1/22/13), bound for Egypt as part of a foreign aid package critics say should have been scrapped when the nation elected a president who has called President Obama a liar and urged that hatred of Jews be instilled in children.Â
 @the unvarnished truth  @rightandexact This is a side note, granted, but Al Gore IS the biggest BOZO of them ALL!
 @OrcasThunder  @lakeview It is appalling that the Obama administration would send F-16s and 200 military tanks to Egypt in the wake of the instability, [and the] anti-American and anti-Israel atmosphere.
 @OrcasThunder  @lakeview It's pretty safe to say that if Saddam was still in power, even more Iraqis would be dead today.
 @the unvarnished truth "Impossible."
Really? This is the first Bush administration we are talking about - the Gulf war was about kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, NOT WMD's. If Bush 1 had really wanted to end Saddam, why did he stop at the border? We had them running, defeated and changing their shorts...what was there to stop us? The fact it, Bush STILL saw Saddam as the best counter to Iran, did not want to have to put a massive American military presence on the border with Iran just prior to a national election.
 @James127 "I don't care if GHWB or GWB handed Saddam the weapons personally."
And yet you ask ME if I would like him killing Kurds? No, I wouldn't - just as I did not like the US sending arms to Saddam in the first place. It was just a continuation of the tens of decades long policy of the US government to provide aid (especially arms) to the enemies of our enemies, That policy was what caused the Vietnam war (HỠChà Minh wanted a peaceful relationship with the US, his forces had actively worked to rescue US military pilots shot down during the Pacific War), led to the paranoid policies regarding Communist China (the Maoists forces worked with the US to rescue US pilots, and used American aid to fight the Japanese)...In almost EVERY case we have chosen the wrong people to support - case in point out supporting the Shah in Iran. We have created almost every problem that we have had to turn around and wage war against.
And Saddam would not still be in power - he would have been eliminated by some other thug, or we could have given support to the "Free Iraq" groups who would have killed him, and then we could start worrying about THEM when they started picking on the other minorities in the country.
OK, I answered your question, now answer one of mine...would you support sending US troops into Zimbabwe to stop President Robert Mugabe's atrocities against his own people, including massive government measures to starve large portions of the population?
Probably you would not - Zimbabwe has no oil or other major natural resources.
It's amazing some of the rationale you can come up with Orcas!
Â
I don't care if GHWB or GWB handed Saddam the weapons personally. The fact is, Saddam was a sadistic killer of his own people! The most likely reality is that lives have been SAVED after removing Saddam from power, and that is a good thing.
Â
If Saddam was in power still today, still killing Kurds in mass numbers, and we knew about it, and did nothing, you would be fine with that?
 @Zanshin "He used gas on his own people, he tortured and killed his own people"
And under GHW Bush, we financed his war against Iran - AND gave him the technology to produce the gas & bio WMD's...
"the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas."
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0908-08.htm
We also provided tons of regular munitions to his war effort.
So maybe we need to look at who was actually responsible for many of the atrocities he committed on his own people.
 @OrcasThunder He used gas on his own people, he tortured and killed his own people, so I think James's assumption is closer to accurate than you think.
 @OrcasThunder Well seeing as the guy is dead, it is impossible to prove. But taking into consideration how many he killed while in power the assumption is not at all a stretch.
True. But if Saddam was still in power, still killing Kurds by the hundreds at a time, you'd be OK with that?
 @James127  @lakeview "It's pretty safe to say..."
Only "safe" because you can't prove that statement.
Â
 @lakeview I remember asking myself what Iraq had to do with 9/11 when the news came in that we were starting to bomb Baghdad. I still don't have an answer to that question. At least Afghanistan was hiding Bin Laden, supposedly. But don't forget, many of your Dem friends voted to invade that country....now they are opposed? Remember, D or R, they are all about what makes them $$$ and keeps them in power. Neither side is interested in your freedom or what's best for you. Divisiveness around the 2 party system is exactly what they are interested in.
 @dg54321  You're right that many Dems voted for the Iraq War, including Clinton.
Â
But don't forget that the Bush administration was pushing HARD on WMD, mushroom clouds, etc. Don't forget what they did to Joe Wilson and his wife. Colin Powell at the UN with the presentations about aluminum tubes that turned out to be rubbish? How about Cheney leaking information about WMD to the New York Times, then quoting that very article on Sunday news talk shows (lol). The whole thing was sold around fear and the idea that Saddam was somehow linked to 9/11.
Â
Many many people still believe to this day that Saddam was linked to 9/11.
Â
Â
 @LocalLady  @dg54321: Not to be picky, but I've seen reports (as in NEWS reports) that say everything from ONLY AR used to shoot kids to ONLY HANDGUNS used to shoot, shotgun present, or not, or only in car, and about every permutation, complete with "no that earlier report was preliminary / inaccurate / incomplete / whatever".... I've NOT seen any any final official autopsy reports that lay out the final findings definitively. (If you have a link, please provide). There are LOTS of political points to be made with the final determination, so I don't think we will know for certain for a while. At least, given the level of bad reportage I've seen so far, *I* won't be certain for a while.
 @dg54321:Â
".... That the AR at Sandy Ridge was used in the shooting exclusively? ...."
Â
Are you referring to Sandy HOOK?
Â
Per the Medical Examiner's findings, ALL the vicitms were shot multiple times with the AR. He shot himself with the Glcok.
Â
So much for conspriracy theories....
 @dg54321  @lakeview YESS!!!!!!!!!! =)
Â
 @OrcasThunder I recalled it as WMD...don't remember it being purely "nukes"...but I am getting older. Not really the point of my initial post though.
 @aintno1special First, it was the "NUKES" that Bush used to justify his war. Second, most of what WAS found was outdated and in fact were minor compared to what existed prior to the first war...as shown by the following:
"Had extensive program before the Persian Gulf War under which it produced and stockpiled mustard, tabun, sarin, and VX.
Delivered chemical agents against Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq War using aerial bombs, artillery, rocket launchers, tactical rockets, and helicopter-mounted sprayers. Also used chemical weapons against its Kurdish population in 1988.
Program was largely dismantled by United Nations weapons inspectors in the 1990s.
There remains an unknown quantity of various chemical agents in two bunkers at the Muthanna State Establishment. These were too dangerous to be entered by inspectors. The OPCW and U.S. government is currently consulting with Iraq about potential disposal arrangements."
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif
 @OrcasThunder ..and his gas WMDs?
 @lakeview  @dg54321 There are tons of yellowcake sitting in Canada that was captured in Iraq. Do you homework instead of regurgitating NBC.
 @aintno1special  @lakeview "but we know he had it in the Gulf War 1"
And ALL of the inspections and studies since that war showed that he abandoned the nuclear work because of that war.
 @lakeview I rail so hard against the left because I see an incredible amount of intellectual dishonesty, and a media that likes to cover for such things, but loves to expose the things that don't matter, but are sensationalist, when it comes to the right. They are all scumbags, but let's get the whole scoop and stop being shown that the left are all humanitarians and feed homeless minority children in their free time while the right is kicking puppies to get their kicks. It's biased and it's wrong. And with all of this division, the people most likely to preserve your freedom and do the best job as a leader are ignored because nobody wants to hear the facts....they want to know who is having an affair with who. It's reality TV, based in Washington DC. It's sickening. We are a country of high school children, obsessed with drama and who's wearing what while they screw around on their partners, while giving us the shaft as we are distracted by nonsense. It HAS to stop. People HAVE to start paying attention and thinking for themselves. Stop listening to mainstream news because you are not getting the whole story, or even the correct one, no matter who you listen to.
 @lakeview I used to hear about Saddam being linked to 9/11.....right around the time we invaded Iraq. It died out pretty quickly. I have not heard anything of the sort in years. As far as the Bush administration lying......which is true? That the AR at Sandy Ridge was used in the shooting exclusively? Or that it was found in the trunk, as shown on video footage in the media, but quickly pulled the day after? Politicians are liars. ALL of them. Lies mean nothing if they further their agenda, whatever that may be.....the only thing you can be guaranteed of is that their agenda revolves around furthering their own power and monetary gain. Bush, Cheney, Obama, Biden, Clinton, Rice.....I wouldn't trust ANY of them as far as I could throw them.
 @lakeview I don't for a second think Saddam was linked to 9/11...I am sure he reveled in the act, but I don't think he had part in it. That said, I do think he had WMD...maybe not when the "intel" showed it, but we know he had it in the Gulf War 1...and I am certain he had it following...but this story is about Benghazi...not Iraq. So I have made my post accordingly.
Â
There has been plenty of anti-Iraq invasion stories over the past decade.
 @lakeview Oh, and the Fox News BS is really getting old. It's just as biased as any other news source out there.....they put articles out there that no other news source would, and I appreciate them for that. It's like calling CNN the Commie News Network. Childish and adds nothing to the discussion.
 @Scott Collier  @dg54321  @lakeview The media has always been anti establishment/antipropaganda by design. The media was started to fight the aristocracies from spreading lies to its people. Fox news and the GOP got nothin' good planned for the average American person, so the liberal media uses its power to point that out, that's all.
 @dg54321  @lakeview The head of CBS's Political News department just put out a piece advising Obama to destroy the GOP. CBS is bought and paid for by the democrats. Is that what our leaders are supposed to be doing? That seems like an un-American thing to do, trying to get a political monopoly and crush all other viewpoints. That's North Korea. Is that what we want? How about they "focus like a laser" on fixing the economy so people can find jobs like Obama promised several years ago (still waiting...)? That's what they should be doing, not all this political gamesmanship.Â
 @lakeview If Fox is "propaganda" for the GOP, then CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC and PBS are "propaganda" for the Dems. I'd say the right is a bit outnumbered in the media department then, hmm? Or maybe, just maybe, they are all biased, and tend towards the sensationalist side of media to gain viewership, like we see here in the local media with KOMO releasing news articles before there is even any information in them, with spelling errors, etc, just to be "first". Nah, couldn't be.......
 @lakeview  @dg54321 I do think that is the point he was making. For those opposed to the mainstream bias it gets a little more difficult to label all of the outlets promoting Dem propaganda.
 @dg54321 No, Fox News is propaganda for the GOP. I think anyone can see that. Of course most mainstream media are in the tank for Obama too, but that doesn't change what Fox is.
I wonder if Ms. Clinton knows the meaning of "is."Â
 @Bianca That's the "best" you can come up with? That is Pathetic beyond reasoning!
Ms. Clinton was the PRIMARY VICTIM in the act of adultery - if SHE chose to get past that, shouldn't we follow her example? It was, after all, not a violation of any law in the US, nor was it a security breach. It was simply a personal failing in a marriage.
 @OrcasThunder  @Bianca she chose to get past it to give herself a career. she would never had been where she is today without bill.
 @takingamericaback  @Bianca Read my post above - and note the words "Like I stated, that is a pathetic line of attack, with no relevance to reality OR to her performance as Sec. of State. All you do with pursuing it is demonstrate your monumental lack of both reasoning and objectivity...not to mention your oft exhibited failures in common decency and moral judgement."...and include yourself in that pond of swill...
 @OrcasThunder  @Bianca The problem with Billie's BJ in the oval office is that he lied about it in front of a grand jury, as part of a legitimate sexual harassment lawsuit. Does the name Paula Jones ring a bell?
I slammed Ms Clinton? Where?
Â
Stay on topic Orcas.
McCain milked his POW status? Your credibility flies right out of the window when you make a statement like that! He almost NEVER talked about it. In fact, Barry is the one who brought the subject up during their debates in 2008.
 @the unvarnished truth You wrote "She CHOSE to be a "victim" in order to further political ambitions."...
Â
Are you seriously stating that Ms Clinton CHOSE to be a victim of her husband's infidelity, because she wanted to run for office?
That is an absurd statement.
As a matter of FACT, she chose to NOT be a victim. She did not leave him, she did not get involved in ANY of the public discussions, she did NOT play the victim publicly. She stood on her own strength and got past it. She could very easily have used the event to act the "wounded wife" and garnered the pity and support of the entire nation - and she made the choice not to do so. Unlike some current politicians who have used their past trials in life to climb the ladder - Sen McCain is one who has long milked his POW status for all it is worth, and then some - she has gotten where she is because of her abilities. But then, you support people who get "binders of women", and STILL can't find a woman for a position of power.
Â
 @James127 "My comments had nothing to do with Ms Clinton"
But you just couldn't resist slamming her for something that she was the victim of, could you?
You attributed Billie's BJ to nothing more than a "personal failing". My comment is that it was much more than that. It was legal purgery and a mocking disgrace to the office of the president. My comments had nothing to do with Ms Clinton. My comments were directed to the fact that you treat Billie's action far too lightly.
 @James127  @Bianca "is that he lied about it in front of a grand jury"
But what does THAT have to do with Ms Clinton? How does SHE have any blame in THAT?Â
Like I stated, that is a pathetic line of attack, with no relevance to reality OR to her performance as Sec. of State. All you do with pursuing it is demonstrate your monumental lack of both reasoning and objectivity...not to mention your oft exhibited failures in common decency and moral judgement.