Mama Clinton Turns the Table on the Committee...

No deflection at all. The issue was who to blame for the attacks on 9/11/01. I bypassed the typical liberal argument....blame Bush and pointed to the first president who was in office and had an opportunity to act to prevent the attacks.

I am no Bush fan I am just tired of the typical liberal tactics here.


Instead of rehashing tired argument why don't you get back to praising Obama and Clinton for latest victory at avoiding responsibility and accountability in what was supposed to be a brave new era of transparency.

 

Why don't you quit deflecting and answer the question? If Hillary is culpable, then Bush is equally culpable for 9/11.

 

No. I believe Bush was actively doing all he could. Clinton was derelict in her duty and this is compounded by her lies. Obama should have been in the hot seat before her as his guilt is even greater (ether by virtue of his office or by design).

 

Now, will quit blaming Bush and deflecting Obama's issues onto him? This is Obama's presidency. It is his recession. It is his war. It is his mess.

 

:laugh: Man, Bush must be the new standard. it is funny to watch liberals twist & contort to keep from having to admit their leaders are failures.

Bush didn't get memos asking for more security that he ignored. Bush never blamed an American filmmaker and had him jailed. In fact, all Bush did was what the democrats had been telling him to do.

You know Joe Biden's got his 1016 prez commercial. That's not the last we're going to hear of Hillary's "WHAT DOERS IT MATTER" rant.

 

All you Righties can do is deflect I see. Can't answer a simple question.

The fact is that it is one thing to fail at nailing OBL. Quite another to ignore blatant warnings and intelligence, resulting in the deaths of over 3000 people.

Just proves my point...this isn't about Hillary's culpability. If she were a Republican, you guys would be whining about the investigation. Yet you refuse to acknowledge Dubya's culpability. Amazing. It's all about whose ox is being gored.

 

MP, you keep accusing others of deflecting but have only shown you are either unable or unwilling to actually acknowledge what others are posting. You have proven no point that plays into your favor at all.

 

:laugh: i wasn't asked a question.

If Bush is a failure for failing to nab OBL, then so is Hillary's husband.

The last statement of yours is pure conjecture. To say I'm not critical of republicans is a lie.

 

So the answer is that you refuse to answer a simple question. Thanks. Your partisan hypocrisy is here for all to see.

 

Obama could have held Bush accountable for a number of things but he chose not to despite the democrats howling for Bush's head on a pike.

What was it Obama said again, oh yeah here it is,

"[N]othing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past … we must resist the forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common future."

By closing two cases of detainees tortured to death, Obama has put the US beyond any accountability under the rule of law

 

Poncho, for once, we agree. Obama should not have let Dubya off the hook.

 

No he shouldn't have. But hey Obama is free to torture people now and no one will hold him accountable for it. Shucks no democrat will even question him about it even though the rendition and torture programs they once hated continue under his rein.

It's all good when "my guy" does it and besides "their guy" done it before "my guy" done it and that alone must make it okay.

 

Sure she did. She is a democrat. And just why are those who were not killed in Benghazi not available for questioning?

 

Hillary can't tell the truth about it. If she did she'd be admitting that the embassy was a gun free zone. Now how would that look while her boss is in the middle of trying to make the whole United States a gun free zone?

That wouldn't be a smart move at all politically at this time. Now would it?

Americans might think gee whiz maybe leaving people defenseless and at the mercy of armed murderers isn't such a good idea after all.

 

And here you go off the rails. Being a Democrat doesn't make one a liar. This kind of language makes rational discussion impossible.

 

President Obama is NOT discussing or proposing disarming Americans. He is talking about regulation...as in "well-regulated". Gun laws are not unconstitutional. No one is asking that we disarm law abiding citizens.

 

I wonder this as well, and my best guess why is that it is inconvenient.

 

Talking point, and the public doesn't seem to be buying it.

 

Whoa, you actually believe that don't ya? :tonofbricks:


I'm just taking Hillary Clinton at her word. Just like you brother.

In her first address from the Senate floor, Hillary Clinton offered an agenda of health care initiatives, casting herself as a moderate on the very issue that resulted in one of her most embarrassing defeats as first lady. The Clinton administration’s failed attempt to overhaul the nation’s health care system was widely derided at the time as big-government liberalism. She said that the experience [taught her] “the importance of bipartisan cooperation and the wisdom of taking small steps to get a big job done,“ she said.

The school of small steps. First the semi autos, then the bolt actions, then the single shots.

"It only takes one bullet to kill someone ya know."

Besides you are flat out wrong about Obama. He's been talking about grabbing guns for a long time. So has Schumer and Feinstein and Bloomberg, and so many other gun grabbers. I lived in New York I know a thing or two about how gun grabbers think and how they work.

They hate guns and they hate the thought of people owning guns. They aren't going to stop after they get our semi autos. It's just the beginning for them.