Comments by "LRRPFco52" (@LRRPFco52) on "CNN"
channel.
-
12
-
7
-
6
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
Yes, it shows a career pattern of lying from her. You will not be able to find a politician who has lied more than Hillary Clinton.
Just like with every other scandal she's been involved in, she continues to tell bold face lies, and get away with it, especially when the deaths of others are involved. This isn't the first time either.
There are some of us who are cynical observers of DC, who view both parties with suspicion, and want to see accountability when the malfeasance of corruption leads to deaths. In this case, Hillary is able to turn it around to make herself look like the victim, as she laughs to the bank with the Clinton Global Initiative. That's the one where she helped broker deals that allowed Putin to corner the uranium market, which is an even bigger scandal than Benghazi.
Your willful blind support for such a criminal is saddening really. The evidence is plainly available nowadays, especially with the work from Judicial Watch.
2
-
There were several phases to the well-planned and executed assaults on several US annexes and complexes in Benghazi, with the help of groups who were supposed to be providing local security to US efforts in the region.
In fact, the various security agencies and contractors had been getting ground truth that something was getting ready to go down, and it wasn't looking good for them. They sent many messages to State and Langley, AFRICOM, and relevant agencies stating as much, and these requests were simply ignored or not acted upon.
The idea that this had something to do with a video is a lie though, and everyone on the inside knew it. What it did have to do with was trying to ignore a growing regional threat to US interests, with the potential to derail the false statements made by Obama regarding al Qaeda on the run.
The internal politicking was to just hope that nothing would happen before the election, and not escalate the situation by fulfilling the requests of foreign services personnel in Benghazi. Their policy failed of course, and cost several American lives.
Their response was to protect an inept President and his campaign slogans, rather than admit failure and lose the election.
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
When you're guilty of actually committing those war crimes over decades of senior political decision-making. You have to understand that Hillary picked most of the Clinton WH cabinet positions, against the will of Bill and many of his staff. She chose Madeline war criminal Albright ("yes, it's worth it" - Iraqi children deaths), Janet murder scores of women and children Reno, Travel Office Firings, firing of FBI Director William Sessions the day before Vince Foster was murdered, voting for the Iraq War when she was in the Senate, passing critical NSA surveillance system codes to enemy foreign governments, sending Ron Brown on the trade mission to Yugoslavia when Brown was under investigation by the DOJ for money-laundering foreign campaign funds for the Clinton's through his son's bank account, "We came, we saw, he died, ha ha ha ha ha ha!"
That's how you lose to Donald Trump. There were plenty of politically-savvy people in the Democrat Party who warned everyone about Hillary's garbage baggage, crimes, and unlikeability, but nobody listened, because Hillary literally took over the DNC with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, her former Campaign Chair from 2008.
Underlying all of this, 2016 simply wasn't going to be a Democrat year no matter who was in the hot seat. If Bernie had miraculously gotten the nomination in the face of Hillary/Wasserman Schultz, Trump would have simply said, "Crazy Bernie", and people would have that simple catchword wrapped around him. Bernie Sander's views on foreign policy were admittedly and shamelessly uninformed, which he openly declared. Bernie's main focus was domestic policy, which is really outside most of the practical purview of a President, no matter what the campaign rhetoric is. Presidents drive foreign policy more than anything. That's where their power lies, not in domestic policy.
1
-
None of those candidates would have stood a chance against Trump, for a number of reasons. For starters, none of them have the credibility of ever building or creating something, and they identify with the fringe of even the leftist partisan apparatus, not the majority of Americans. They are career politicians who the electorate ultimately don't trust. You need a very charismatic leader to overcome the natural 2016 turnover which was destined to happen with all of the negatives that happened over the Obama years with the economy, new home starts, wars, jobs moving overseas, increasing distrust in anything the media claims, and even more distance between the DNC and America.
The only person who could have won against Donald Trump would have been JFK Jr., but he died in a plane crash many years ago. He would have had a substantial number of Republicans voting for him, just on the old file footage of JFK's funeral alone.
What combined into a perfect storm in 2016 was a charismatic leader, regardless of how you feel about him, who took a wrecking ball to the Republican primaries, appealed to the electorate through countless campaign rallies that were packed with overflow, who ran as an outsider, non politician who has a record of actually building things, managing things, to the tune of billions, regardless of how anyone feels about those accomplishments. People that call him an idiot do so based on partisan ideology, without taking a step back and asking, "Who is the idiot? The guy with billions in assets who the banks come to for money that doesn't need their contributions to run, or the little mental midget who takes their talking points from provably incompetent media presstitutes who are wrong about most of the stories they cover.
1
-
1
-
I thought you were describing Clinton for a second. Think about the idea that Donald Trump is dumb. Take a fat magic marker, a clean sheet of paper, and write your net worth on it backwards. Take a picture of Donald Trump and write his net worth backwards on the same sheet of paper. Stand in front of a mirror. Repeat, "One of these people is dumb, the other is not." until you figure it out.
It takes talent and perseverance to be able to achieve that level of importance and influence, beyond what the vast majority of people have or will ever have accomplished in life, which is why people like that command the level of responsibility they do, and others sit at home and wait for someone else to tell them when to show up for work, what to wear, when they can eat, and when to go home. It's common for employees look at innovators and achievers, and think they did it with ill-gotten means, because they don't understand what personal achievement and excellence are.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1