Hillary Goes Under the Bus


In an interview Monday with CNN, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton identified herself as the person to blame for the U.S.’s failure to prevent the Sept. 11, 2012 terrorist attack that took the life Ambassador Chris Stevens and that of three other Americans at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. Clinton took care to shield the White House from the scandal, saying that diplomatic security was the exclusive role of the State Department. Coming on the eve of the second presidential debate, the admission follows a barrage of high-level administration surrogates shifting blame to the State Department, and Clinton no doubt felt tremendous pressure to concede in order to remove an important cudgel at Mitt Romney’s disposal. But while Clinton may very well bear much responsibility for the tragedy, the ultimate culprit is the Obama administration policy of voluntary weak positioning abroad, which the President’s State Department was executing in Benghazi. This is why the administration engaged in such a clear cover-up following the attack, along with the President’s need to maintain the facade that he has brought the threat of Islamic terrorism under control.

The tide had turned for Clinton after the vice presidential debate last Thursday when Vice President Joe Biden put the Benghazi problem squarely in Hillary’s lap. Biden claimed that he and the president “weren’t told they wanted more security there.” On Friday, White House spokesman Jay Carney doubled down. ”These kinds of issues are handled in the State Department by security officials,” he said. Over the weekend the State Department blame game was in full swing. David Axelrod, Obama’s chief re-election campaign strategist, “explained” Biden’s debate assertion to “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace. “The White House was talking about what the White House knew,” Axelrod said. “There are embassies all over the world and requests all over the world and these requests go over the the security professionals at the State Department. And there’s no doubt that some of these matters went into the security department of the State Department. But it didn’t come to the White House, and that’s what the vice president was responding to,” he added.

Obama advisor Robert Gibbs stayed with that theme in an interview Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union,” where he spoke with CNN’s chief political correspondent Candy Crowley, who will be moderating the second presidential debate. “Security requests at our embassies and consulates and our buildings throughout the world obviously go to the State Department,” said Gibbs. “Those are the people that should be making those decisions. Nobody wants to get to the bottom of exactly what happened more than this president and this administration,” he added.

The most telling part of these last two interviews is that they took place two days after Clinton attempted to deflect blame away from her department last Friday. “Our people cannot live in bunkers and do their jobs,” Clinton said in remarks at an event in Washington, D.C. hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Clinton also noted that she has appointed an accountability review board to determined what went wrong and what lessons can be learned regarding the attack. “We are working as thoroughly and expeditiously as possible, knowing that we cannot sacrifice accuracy to speed,” Clinton contended. “And of course our government is sparing no effort in tracking down the terrorists that perpetrated these attacks.” She further contended that a State Department that has a presence in 170 countries cannot be expected to guard against all acts of violence. “That is the reality of the world we live in,” Clinton said. “We will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism or achieve perfect security.”

Perhaps not. But during a House Oversight Committee hearing last Wednesday, five memos requesting additional security were released–and State Department officials confirmed the requests had been denied. Eric Nordstrom, who was in charge of security in Libya for the State Department, revealed his frustration in dealing with State Department bureaucracy with respect to obtaining more security. He said he told a regional that the toughest part of his job was “not the hardships, it’s not the gunfire, it’s not the threats. It’s dealing, and fighting, against the people, programs, and personnel who are supposed to be supporting me.” He then offered a damnable assessment of that bureaucracy. ”For me, the Taliban is on the inside of the building.”

Hillary Clinton herself has been an integral part of the overall disinformation strategy regarding Benghazi that has now come back around to bite her. Both she and the President presented a united front when the coordinated effort to blame the attacks on the 13-minute movie trailer “Innocence of Muslims” took place. That effort reached its zenith when the administration spent $70,000 on an ad campaign in Pakistan–starring President Obama and Hillary Clinton — condemning that video. ”We absolutely reject its content and message,” said Clinton in the ads. This was an Oscar-worthy production indeed, given that we have learned that there is little indication that there was even any protest at the consulate prior to the attack. Nonetheless, it was administration spokespeople like Jay Carney and Susan Rice who maintained this fiction under the direction of the White House long after the attack took place. But why? To protect Hillary Clinton? Or to protect the facade of a failed foreign policy and its true engineer?

Clinton proceeded to dig herself in even deeper. On September 20th, Clinton also contradicted the reality of the five aforementioned memos when she said that there was “absolutely no information or reason to believe there is any basis” that U.S. Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens believed he was on an Al Qaeda hit list. That statement also conflicted with Stevens’ own diary, where the US ambassador to Libya revealed concerns about his own security, and the rising influence of Al Qaeda in the region.

Thus Hillary Clinton remains in the eye of a storm, one at least partly of her own making. And that storm may get a bit more turbulent if House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Darryl Issa (R-CA) calls on her to testify before the committee investigating the security breakdown. Last Wednesday Issa, who has praised Clinton’s cooperation regarding the incident so far, alluded to that possibility. “If it leads to areas in which she is a…witness, of course she will [be asked to testify],” Issa told ”America’s Newsroom.” “In general we start as we did here with the whistle-blower and then we work up, down and sideways to get to the truth. You never take it off the table. It could go sideways, it could go to the White House, the FBI. There are a lot of people and places that had to fail for this tragedy to occur,” he added.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) was far more blunt. “At the highest levels of our government…they knew this was a terrorist attack as it was happening,” he said, prior to Issa’s interview. “I think this speaks to the character of this administration. I think they know the president is very vulnerable with his mission accomplished, spiking the football regarding Osama bin Laden.”

For her part, Hillary Clinton should have expected no different than the predicament she finds herself in now. For nearly four years, President Obama has sought to blame the failures of his administration on anyone or anything other than himself, including President Bush, a Republican House, the European Union, or even Japanese tsunamis. Obama knows that Clinton will weather this storm, whereas he is not certain he will weather the next election. The calculation for him was easy. However, while Clinton will be tried weakly in the press in the coming days, the real indictment belongs with the Obama policies of weakness in word and deed abroad, which is above the Secretary’s pay grade.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Larry

    Harry Truman used to have a sign on the desk that the obamessiah occassionaly walks in and looks at. It read "The Buck Stops Here".

    And it was absolutely correct, the buck stops with the person getting paid to do the top job, in this case, with the obamessiah, even though he isn't actually doing it.

    • Leslie Satenstein

      If a crook shot up a police station in LA, is the head of the FBI responsible, and why stop there, why not blame the president, who did nothing to change the gun laws.

  • Jon_Babtist

    Wow Hillary and Obama, now there are a couple of world class liars. Hillary's fubar doesn't
    explain 2 weeks of lying and covering up by the rest of the treasonous Obama gang of criminals.

    • Jim_C

      Can you explain it? How would "lying" serve Obama?

      • Kufar Dawg

        Duh, to obfuscate the fact that the zero is responsible for what happened in Libya, because he sure as hell can't blame it on Dubya.

        • Jim_C

          See, it's you guys really do think he's a magical messiah, with special powers to prevent terrorist attacks everywhere. Because God forbid one happens–yippee! you'll be able to jump all over him in a desperate attempt to garner some election year juice.

          • Kufar Dawg

            I imagine if this debacle had happened under Dubya's tenure you would be singing a different tune.

  • Chezwick

    Back when there was at least of degree of accountability in America, a public figure's acknowledgement that he/she was responsible for a tragedy was usually accompanied by a resignation. All that changed with Janet Reno and the Waco disaster in 1993. She took "full responsibility" for the tragedy, and then continued serving as Attorney General for another 7 years. It was tantamount to acknowledging nothing at all.

    Will Hillary be doing a Reno and continue serving in an official capacity as if nothing happened, or by acknowledging responsibility for Benghazi, will she do the responsible thing and resign? Why do I suspect the former?

    • Kufar Dawg

      I think shrillery would be much happier working for the islamofascist OIC, her ideological comrades.

    • pagegl

      I tend to believe that leftists hardly, if ever, regard anything as being their responsibility or fault. Even if they profuse to accept responsibility as Hillary has done, it wasn't really her fault in her mind. Just as Obama refuses to accept any responsibility for anything that has happened on his watch. Well, in the case of Obama, HE did get Obama and end the Islamist threat…

    • Jim_C

      Ah, Janet Reno, the accountability culprit!

      Forget about a little arms deal with Iran, did we?

    • Jim_C

      In fact, let me continue to mine this rich vein. Imagine if Carter had been re-elected. A few short years after Iran had taken our hostages, imagine if Carter, needing to fund some military action Congress wasn't keen on, decided to cut a little back room deal. With IRAN.

      Imagine that these funds would be channeled to squads of rapists and thugs; imagine Carter comparing these thugs to "our founding fathers."

      You'd better believe FPM would have a field day with that one!

      What was that about accountability?

      • Chezwick

        1) The architects of the Iran-Contra policies, Bud McFarlane, John Poindexter, and Ollie North, all resigned either before or during the unfolding of the scandal. Janet Reno served another 7 years after accepting "full responsibility" for the killing of almost 30 American children. You lose.

        2) The Nicaraguan Contras were a heterogeneous group of 20 to 30,000 fighters. Much (though not all) of the leadership was indeed comprised of Somoza's old cronies, but most of the rank-and-file were disaffected Nicaraguan workers and peasants fighting against the totalitarian policies of the Sandinistas. How telling that would paint the entire movement as "rapists and thugs".

        • Jim_C

          I should hope they resigned. They CAUSED Iran Contra. Hillary didn't cause these attacks. Like the Secretaries of State under Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush–embassies were attacked while she was in office. I win!

          What, I can't play the "rapists and thugs" game? Every time a group of lefties picks up a poster board, they get called rapists and thugs, here, whether its OWS or the Madison, WI protesters. Unlike the Contras, however, these groups weren't well-documented, torturing, frequent violators of human rights. So when I say "rapists and thugs" I MEAN that.

      • Kufar Dawg

        If we're imagining, why don't we imagine a world without islam?

        • Jim_C

          OK, will do.

    • Maxie

      "All that changed with Janet Reno and the Waco disaster in 1993. She took "full responsibility" for the tragedy, and then continued serving as Attorney General for another 7 years."

      Pe@rl Harb0r preceded Wac0 and set the precedent that MarxiCrat administrations are completely immune to the consequences of their incncompetences. Add Fast & Furious to the list as well. The bottom line is the totally corrupt M@rxStream Media that serves as Propagand arm of the CorruptoCrat Party.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "But while Clinton may very well bear much responsibility for the tragedy, the ultimate culprit is the Obama administration policy of voluntary weak positioning abroad, which the President’s State Department was executing in Benghazi. This is why the administration engaged in such a clear cover-up following the attack, along with the President’s need to maintain the facade that he has brought the threat of Islamic terrorism under control."

    Bingo

  • objectivefactsmatter

    “We are working as thoroughly and expeditiously as possible, knowing that we cannot sacrifice accuracy to speed,” Clinton contended. “And of course our government is sparing no effort in tracking down the terrorists that perpetrated these attacks.” She further contended that a State Department that has a presence in 170 countries cannot be expected to guard against all acts of violence. “That is the reality of the world we live in,” Clinton said. “We will never prevent every act of violence or terrorism or achieve perfect security.”

    I hate that liberals act like they are criticized because "something happened" when the criticism is very specific. We've been warning about this leading from behind BS ever since Obama revealed his foreign policy. Yes, bad events happen, and then the analysis begins. Based on that analysis, the Obama administration has been completely wrong in its strategy to back dial-back our military hegemony, and apologize for allegations against the USA and the West that aren't even true.

    It's beyond belief that liberals think this is equal to having for example the Marines attacked in Lebanon during Reagan's administration. I've actually heard that as a defense. It just translates to, "Things happen, and nobody is ever really accountable for those things."

    It's policy analysis that denies fatalism as a legitimate ideology for a president.

    • Kufar Dawg

      The zero regime, where lying is frowned upon, unless absolutely convenient.

      All I can say is, shrillery wouldn't have been any better as POTUS than what we have now.

    • Jim_C

      So the opinion (newly-formed amongst conservatives conveniently "after something happened") is now trying to cultivate influence in Libya in the power vaccuum left by Khaddafi was the wrong thing to do?

      • Kufar Dawg

        Um, the theme of the article in question revolves around a presidential regime lying about the slaughter of a US ambassador and embassy staff by muslimes in order to deflect criticism from the regime in question and assign blame everywhere except where it belongs.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "So the opinion (newly-formed amongst conservatives conveniently "after something happened") is now trying to cultivate influence in Libya in the power vaccuum left by Khaddafi was the wrong thing to do?"

        Start with a coherent policy, ok? If you want kudos, begin with that and then try to implement it consistently.

        "trying to cultivate influence in Libya in the power vaccuum left by Khaddafi was the wrong thing to do?""

        Again, you want to deny the points that are being made. Perhaps we should start at the beginning where you think the criticism of Obama starts. Do you understand what hegemony is and how America uses it? Do you understand the phrase "Pax America?" Do you understand how Obama's foreign policy threatens the above doctrines?

        It's not like he pulled it off either. He claimed to have a theory totally in contradiction with all past post-war presidents. Radical, but he got elected. Fine. Now you have 4 years. Show us you are so much smarter.

        Now what? He failed absolutely and completely. It is so clear that he failed because *everything* has gone backwards. Now you try to put Humpty Dumpty back together again and show me how he has had any success whatsoever aside from building a fan base among delusional leftists.

        Please defend Obama's foreign policies directly, not by attacking lies about what conservatives supposedly say when you take statements out of context.

  • oldtimer

    0, is still Coward, sorry, Commander in Chief so he is responsible for "everything" that happens under him.

    • Kufar Dawg

      I'm sure he would blame Dubya if he could. Hey maybe the zero and shrillery could just state that the slaughter of a US ambassador and embassy staff is just a case of workplace violence!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "0, is still Coward, sorry, Commander in Chief so he is responsible for "everything" that happens under him."

      That's what "good" leaders do. Those who follow communist teachings do the opposite. In this case, it really is that simple.

  • Jamie

    "Clinton will be tried weakly in the press in the coming days"

    To which I'd say "you wish!"

    Nobody in the media, apart from Fox, is making a big deal out of this. They're all busy licking Obama's back side. Americans are, on the whole, stupid people, keen to finance Islamists in Pakistan and waiting their next welfare cheque (call it Obama bribe) to care for much. Frankly, Obama is what you deserve and is what you'll get.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Clinton will be tried weakly in the press in the coming days"

      'To which I'd say "you wish!" '

      You are correct. There's an article elsewhere that predicted this move as the most productive (and cynical) for the administration and for Hillary. The model was set after Waco. Integrity and accountability have absolutely nothing to do with this.

  • davarino

    But if the economy were to turn around tomorrow, that would be Obama's fault. I'm sure he would take responsibility for that, otherwise, nothing is his responsibility/fault. So what good is he if everything is out of his controll? Thanks Obama for helping us to make our decision

    • Kufar Dawg

      Well, according to the current presidential regime, the economy is already back on its feet. Unemployment is "down" and more people are driving now (I actually heard CNN cite this as evidence the economy has turned around).

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Well, according to the current presidential regime, the economy is already back on its feet."

        Maybe they should join Comedy Central and create a new "fake news" show for us to laugh at. At this point, it's too difficult to avoid crying when I hear their lies.

  • WildJew

    Mr. Ahlert wrote: "the ultimate culprit is the Obama administration policy of voluntary weak positioning abroad, which the President’s State Department was executing in Benghazi."

    The ultimate culprit is this fantasy of implanting democracy in the midst of savages; embraced largely by the left but also by many on the right. Maybe the reason so few conservatives are willing to acknowledge the folly of the venture is because it was initiated by none other George W. Bush in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. Consequently, Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza are all sharia compliant states / entities. So are Egypt and Libya and maybe Syria if President Romney (God-willing Obama is defeated) helps the "freedom fighters" depose Assad. That is what Paul Ryan said they were looking for in Syria. Let us hope Romney-Ryan come to their senses. There is a reason peoples who can neither control nor govern themselves have dictatorships. Bush, Obama and company are toppling largely secular-run states, replacing them with sharia / jihad states.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Sharia/jihad states, it's what the scuzzlums want, as demonstrated in Egyptistan, Pakistain, Syria, Libya ad nauseum.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      Mr. Ahlert wrote: "the ultimate culprit is the Obama administration policy of voluntary weak positioning abroad, which the President’s State Department was executing in Benghazi."

      'The ultimate culprit is this fantasy of implanting democracy in the midst of savages; embraced largely by the left but also by many on the right. '

      You're not wrong, but you're not contradicting his statement either. There might be a way to successfully implement the doctrine you describe as a fantasy by following the model of post-war Japan. See Shinto in post-war Japan according to its constitution. The thing is that liberals hate how successfully that worked, and it scares them to death. That is why they must fight our implementation of these strategies the minute they hear about the goals. It could work, but we must eradicate collectivist ideologies from the 5th columns (communism-socialism and Islamic supremacy) presently in this nation, and then we can succeed again in foreign policy objectives that are consistent with the successful elements of the Pax Americana.

      "Maybe the reason so few conservatives are willing to acknowledge the folly of the venture is because it was initiated by none other George W. Bush in Afghanistan, Iraq and the Palestinian Authority. Consequently, Afghanistan, Iraq and Gaza are all sharia compliant states / entities. So are Egypt and Libya and maybe Syria if President Romney (God-willing Obama is defeated) helps the "freedom fighters" depose Assad. That is what Paul Ryan said they were looking for in Syria. Let us hope Romney-Ryan come to their senses. There is a reason peoples who can neither control nor govern themselves have dictatorships. Bush, Obama and company are toppling largely secular-run states, replacing them with sharia / jihad states."

      Elected officials can only accomplish so much in office. We as a society must look to them AND each other to fight 5th columnists and collectivist ideologies. Elected officials must get elected, no? They must compromise. We don't need to. We need to all work together in every possible way.

      We have failed as a nation not because we elected the wrong people, but because we expected too much action from those elected officials while we remained blind to the extent of the problems. We can't simply look to the government and elected officials only. We hold them accountable, yes, but we can't stop there or we allow ourselves the fallacy of the need for big government. This is why the 2 major parties are so similar. We must all accept our share of the blame.

  • Schlomotion

    The great effrontery of this article is that it is not written as if it were an opinion column entry. It is written as if Mr. Ahlert sits in the high seat to make appointments and firings of Secretaries of State. In a flip of Frontpagemag morality, a leader taking responsibility for a mistake is suddenly evil. Mr. Ahlert cites Darryl Issa, whom the Kach Party tried to assassinate in 2001. I am reminded that Israel-Firster journalists have already come out saying that they want to slay the current President of the United States. Israel-Firster donors have shoveled money into Mitt Romney's campaign and had him trucking out to Jerusalem and to West Palm Beach to promise them the moon and to express disdain for the non-rich American. Mr. Ahlert is nakedly plain in his desperate desire to yank elected and appointed leaders out of office to serve his foreign-hearted agenda.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Unlike in your various islamofascist states Sharia-moron, we have free speech, which includes the right to criticise our leaders. But maybe you would be happier in any typical, islamofascists pigsty, where criticism of the ruling cabal is a crime only less serious than criticising islam?

      • Schlomotion

        So let me get this straight. I have to leave the United States because I disagree with people pushing Likud Party politics in America?

        • Zionista

          you should leave the US because you're a Jew hating nobody and you probably have B.O. – adios loser!

        • Mo Schlotion

          When you leave the US you should buy your ticket on Kayak.com.

        • http://www.facebook.com/bryan.schmick Bryan Schmick

          And yet you believe all those 'Israel firsters' that are US citizens should be ridiculed to the point that they decide to leave the country.

          How about the Islamic firsters such as pres Obama (according to his own autobiography)?

          • Schlomotion

            No, I don't. They are welcome to stay. They won't be liked very much if they insist on loudly vilifying Americans and our leaders though. The dripping hypocrisy of loving a foreign country more than your current residence and refusing to go live there will always invite the question of why.

          • reader

            The only Americans you seem to be worried about "being vilified" coincidently include commies and muslim brothers. So, those who point out the obvious link are being vilified by you – a troll shilling for commies and muslim brothers.

          • Pontotoc Bill

            According to your logic, you are the one who is not liked very much, if at all.

            Since you insist on vilifying the US and conservatives, slander those who you disagree with, and denigrate those who reject your Islamophillic attitudes, it is obvious that you would be happier in Iran or Afghanistan.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "The dripping hypocrisy of loving a foreign country more than your current residence and refusing to go live there will always invite the question of why."

            I see the fallacy. You think that choosing Israel is against the interests of the United States. This is fallacious, though arguments can be made for this position, they fall apart when examined comprehensively.

            The fact is that the United States benefits from Israel's success in a multitude of ways, and furthermore it is a measure of our ability to defend democracies and keep our promises. Everyone knows about our promises to Israel. Everyone knows it is our closest ally. To suddenly give in to lies originating from Islamic supremacists and Soviet propagandists (the SU is gone, the lies have only grown) would be the single biggest step in destroying American cultural and military hegemony.

            Maybe that is the real point.

            Now some times people say, "That is un-American" and by that they used to mean that it is treasonous to talk about the USA as if we are not a force for good throughout the world as much as realistically possible. Now that the communists have infiltrated education and we have idiots who've read and accepted Howard Zinn (and the like), these anti-American traitors can now say, "On no, you are un-American" as he has in mind the alternate universe created by the pack of lies (which as I said, originated from Islam and Soviet propaganda).

            If you'd make a comprehensive study of the true history of Israel and its relationships with Western powers, you might discover that you've got it all wrong about Israel and what you call, "The dripping hypocrisy of loving a foreign country more than your current residence." Because it's just another lie.

            Loving Israel is loving the USA and the success of liberal democracy. But perhaps we should refer to it as democratic republicanism instead these days.

          • Schlomotion

            The Vietnam War was also a measure of our "ability to defend democracies and keep our promises." The fact is that it is a canard that the US has something to prove by embroiling ourselves in civil wars and land grabs. Democracies can also be powerful. See: Athens. The truth is that we only get involved to wrest natural resources or shipping lanes away from somebody in those cases. That is the long and short of our natural interest. Right now, Israel is on the wrong side of our forward basing security. Israel is the country that spies on the US the most, and is the least useful with forwarding information about impending attacks. They are a foreign aid liability. They routinely break their promises to us about settlement building. Netanyahu has an international reputation now as an obnoxious and pushy liar, a brinksman and a crazy-man. If Israel is our closest ally, then the US is screwed for allies. Clearly, Canada is our best ally as we share a nearly 4000 mile border and they never attack us or flood us with illegal aliens. In contrast, Israel is a drunken banshee.

            I also disagree that I lack a comprehensive knowledge of Israeli history or that a postmortem Communist conspiracy explains anything.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            The Vietnam War was also a measure of our "ability to defend democracies and keep our promises."

            True.

            "The fact is that it is a canard that the US has something to prove by embroiling ourselves in civil wars and land grabs."

            Ah, but there is the rub. It's not a land grab. It's a civil on the front line of the biggest threat to Western civilization ever.

            "Democracies can also be powerful. See: Athens."

            They were only powerful when they were fighting alongside their allies. Good point in support of democracies sticking together the way we need to stand by all of our close allies.

            "The truth is that we only get involved to wrest natural resources or shipping lanes away from somebody in those cases. That is the long and short of our natural interest."

            You state that as if we are greedy with our power. We are generous. The world gains much from our hegemony. The world stands to lose much if it shrinks. It's very clear and unambiguous now that the cold war is over (or in a new phase, depending on how you describe the circumstances).

            "Right now, Israel is on the wrong side of our forward basing security."

            Let's hear you make that case.

            "Israel is the country that spies on the US the most"

            According to myth.

            "and is the least useful with forwarding information about impending attacks."

            A lot of people in the intelligence services would disagree, but perhaps not argue with you publicly.

            "They are a foreign aid liability."

            False. Where do you get that? These are just silly claims. Israel is one of the few that pays back it's aid. Why are you not ranting about Pakistan, Egypt, or Iraq, enemies that receive aid that will NEVER be repaid?

            "They routinely break their promises to us about settlement building."

            How dare anyone dictate to a sovereign how to manage their growth? This is absurd even to ask. Your lack of understanding on this issue shows that you've swallowed the kool-aid of the biggest liars in history.'

            What about New York building permits? Any thoughts on how the mayor is managing soft drink dispensing?

            "Netanyahu has an international reputation now as an obnoxious and pushy liar, a brinksman and a crazy-man."

            Netanyahu is a Jewish Israeli politician who must stand up to 56 sovereign nations and a fake one whose religious ideologies demand they attack Israel. Explain that in terms of justice before you expect that statement to be taken as a negative report on him.

            "I also disagree that I lack a comprehensive knowledge of Israeli history or that a postmortem Communist conspiracy explains anything."

            It only matters if you can debunk the statement, which you can't.

          • Schlomotion

            There is no stretch of the imagination by which I, a man who lived through the Cold War, can possibly accept the idea that Islam is the "biggest threat to Western civilization ever." Spain managed to beat it from 790-1300. Don't forget, it was the Jews that the Spanish Catholics ended up torturing for assisting the Muslims.

            "[Athens was a] Good point in support of democracies sticking together"
            It is also an example of arithmetic vs geometric equality. Everyone in a democracy is equal as a demos, but certainly not equal in wealth or intelligence. Similarly, not all democracies are geometrically equal either. The US may be one democracy, and Israel may be one democracy, but one of these democracies is trying to bury its neighbors with bulldozers and the other is not. Also, one of these democracies pays for the other democracy. We do not stand the same height.

            "The world gains much from our hegemony."
            Benevolent dictatorship might have some long term gains (aqueducts), but they are usually only realized after the "beneficiary" moves to New York and becomes a taxi driver. If I were Omar Abdel-Rahman, the choice would be easy as to whether to be a bearded warlord or a disheveled cab driver. "The world" also loses in terms of blood, treasure, and self-determination from US hegemony. Japan may be a paradise, but Vietnam is not. Guatemala is not. Chile is not. Sometimes they only get the "benefit" of us taking their oil and tanzanite. That's no benefit.

            "Let's hear you make that case [that Israel is on the wrong side of our forward basing security.]"

            For one, as illustrated by Mearsheimer and Walt, the US assisting Israel in its slow bullet expansion is what makes people in those buried and absorbed areas view us as part of "the enemy." They rightly view Israel as our client state, our 53rd State after Puerto Rico and Cuba. We finance 25% of their defense budget, even during a recession. $3 billion dollars a year!

            Secondly, as Cordesman at CSIS says,

            "America’s ties to Israel are not based primarily on U.S. strategic interests. At the best of times, an Israeli government that pursues the path to peace provides some intelligence, some minor advances in military technology, and a potential source of stabilizing military power that could help Arab states like Jordan. Even then, however, any actual Israeli military intervention in an Arab state could prove as destabilizing as beneficial. [...] It does not mean that the United States should extend support to an Israeli government when that government fails to credibly pursue peace with its neighbors."

            I see no reason to disagree with that. Really, that particular assessment is damning: http://csis.org/publication/israel-strategic-liab

            Thirdly, Iran has stated that it will counterattack our forward bases if Israel, our client and an unsigned nuclear power, attacks it, a signed non-nuclear power, for threatening their regional nuclear hegemony. Currently, our relations with Iran should be tepid. Israel is trying to push it to ultra-hostile. Bad move. We shouldn't have to conquer Iran to benefit Israel, especially after spending/wasting so much money to buy the peace. Our strategic interest is really just to be able to drive by Iran in oil ships, something we could do just fine until Israel started setting off bombs in cars and motorcycles in Iran.

            "Why are you not ranting about Pakistan, Egypt, or Iraq, enemies that receive aid that will NEVER be repaid?"
            I am, just not on command. There is nothing anyone at this website can do about those places. Again… "U.S. government subsidies to Israel total over $140 billion since 1949. This makes Israel by far the largest recipient of American giveaways since World War II." Whoa! http://pulsemedia.org/2010/07/25/israel-strategic

            "How dare anyone dictate to a sovereign how to manage their growth?"
            We pay $3 billion dollars a year for the privilege. Israel should go with Meyrav Wurmser's idea and stop expecting and sponging off our welfare payments. We expect peace and stability in the region. Israel cannot deliver. Also, half of Israel's purported target nationality live in the United States, and our press is infested with pro-Israel propagandists. In truth, Israel is only half a place to begin with, sucking additional tons of money out of Florida, Las Vegas, and California to finance their expansion, and relying heavily upon our academic and media institutions. A lot of Bermudan tax evasion is involved.

          • Omar

            Schlomotion, you are so wrong on a bunch of things. Israel doesn't want to be America's "53rd State". Israel is its own sovereign country and it maintains good diplomatic relations with the United States (although the current administration has been making this relationship bumpy). Cuba doesn't want to become another state in the Union. Neither the Cuban government nor its opponents want that. The Cuban government wants to continue oppressing its citizens the way it does now. The Cuban dissidents just want a free and democratic Cuba, free from Communist tyranny. The U.S. has absolutely no intention to annex either country (Israel and Cuba). As for Puerto Rico, it is a U.S. territory and has been part of the American family since the Spanish-American War in 1898. Many people in PR want the island territory to become America's 51st state. In fact, statehood is the only political status option that has seen an increase in support and popularity among the island's residents over time. In 2008, the New Progressive Party (named after Theodore Roosevelt's "Bull Moose" Party), which supports statehood for Puerto Rico, won its largest electoral victory in history. The Governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, is a national Republican and supports America's democratic values. America doesn't have any client states. Russia, China and Iran have client states. The Assad regime in Syria wants to act like another Russian province. That's the reality.

          • Schlomotion

            Yes, I knew those bits of trivia when I made my comment. They are tangential facts notwithstanding.

          • Schlomotion

            "What about New York building permits? Any thoughts on how the mayor is managing soft drink dispensing?"
            Bloomberg is a corporatist soci.alist. He is also Jewish. He also controls a sizeable portion of the media. Those are my thoughts on him. I consider him in the same light as other people who do that. Fortunately I don't live in New York.

            "6 sovereign nations and a fake one"
            They seem to bleed real blood. Something is amiss in your assessment.

            "It only matters if you can debunk the statement, which you can't."
            You admit that the statement is bunk. You are also not administering an Israeli history exam, so nobody has a stake in that one.

          • Omar

            Israel doesn't spy on the U.S., Schlomotion. Where did you get that ridiculous statement? Russia spies on the U.S., yet you don't condemn Putin because you support his neo-communist government.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "So let me get this straight. I have to leave the United States because I disagree with people pushing Likud Party politics in America?"

          A suggestion or a question is not a threat or direction. It's like you questioning why Israel supporters don't all move there. You have other motives and so do they.

          What really matters is who is using objective facts to support their analysis?

          I don't give a damn where anyone lives as long as their behavior is not treasonous or hostile to the USA.

          • Schlomotion

            The difference is that I have asked Israel-Firsters why they don't prefer to live in the country whose aims they hold higher than US interests in the country they reside. What I am frequently asked is why I don't move to Iran or Saudi Arabia, countries I have no religious, political, or ethnic affiliation with.

          • objectivefactsmatter

            I can't speak for them but some of them may be using sarcasm. They may have believed you started the sarcasm.

            But what really should matter is how it truly affects the USA.

          • Kufar Dawg

            I'd rather live in Israel than any of your various and sundry islamofascist pigsties…

          • Omar

            We have so-called "Palestine"-Firsters like "Students for Justice in Palestine" dominating academia at universities across America.

    • Ghostwriter

      Amazing,Schlockmotion. You post the most appalling stuff here and pretend it's enlightened opinion when it's little more than cheerleading for barbarism. You revel in Jew hatred and other vile things and expect us to think that you're some great thinker. I've got news for you. You're not. You're just a piece of anti-semitic garbage who deserves to be condemned as such. I hope you disappear. I won't miss you and I sure a lot of others here won't miss you either.

      • objectivefactsmatter

        "Amazing,Schlockmotion. You post the most appalling stuff here and pretend it's enlightened opinion when it's little more than cheerleading for barbarism."

        You have to remember just how broadly Islamic and communist lies have penetrated acceptance.

        He and others can start by watching Pierre Rehov's "Road to Jenin" and then returning for a calm discussion of the facts. Use that discussion to calibrate the other lies we hear from "Paliwood."

        You'll wake up any liberals who have not been totally lost to the virtual alternate universe created by those liars.

        Don't they every wonder why journalists constantly have their lives threatened, and many are actually tortured and killed? Most of them will admit (only when cornered) that they are scared to report information hostile to the Islamic cause.

        For crying out loud, did not anyone learn anything from these attacks on the embassies? I guess unless you want to learn, you screen out all evidence contrary to your per-existing opinions.

        • Schlomotion

          "Paliwood" is as racist a term as "Shoah Business." We should be on the same page with that. They mean the same thing.

          And when you ask "for crying out loud, did not anyone learn anything from these attacks on the embassies?" that is fundamentally a religious question. You are asking me if I learned a liturgy and a ritual. Did I synchronize with the congregation yet?

          • objectivefactsmatter

            "Paliwood" is as racist a term as "Shoah Business." We should be on the same page with that. They mean the same thing."

            Paliwood may be derogatory, but not racist. Are all derogatory remarks based on racism?

            "Shoah business" is derogatory with reference to legitimate historical claims. Paliwood is derogatory towards a fake civilization and one of the largest ongoing scams in human history.

            What is more salient, the fact that both terms are derogatory, or the distinctions I made?

            "And when you ask "for crying out loud, did not anyone learn anything from these attacks on the embassies?" that is fundamentally a religious question."

            Not at all. I suppose it could be, but at its root the question is about whether the conduct of Islamic supremacists matter. I am not even talking yet about the driving ideology, but the objective facts describing the nearly century long efforts to deceive and swindle the USA and the legitimate sovereigns of Israel by using unprovoked violence including massive slaughters, perfidy, and lies on the scale unknown till now.

            When or if we do then discuss religion, those are strong fact-based theories to explain motives and ideology. Analyzing their behavior requires no discussion of religion unless you deny the most essential laws of the Western world, like lying and unjust violence are immoral. If we can agree on the previous sentence, there is no need for a discussion on religion for this sub-topic unless you want to go there.

            Don't tell me you believe the Palestinian lies about Jenin and al Dura and the like? Either you do or you don't. You'd have to believe the lies to believe in Obama's foreign policy, or at least be unaware of them. That was my point.

            If you think about how massive the influence is of the Islamic world through a fluke of geography (and Western technology), you'd realize their potential to completely dominate global politics if they desired to. They do, and they have. It only takes a few brilliant politicians with plenty of money and the belief that Allah wants them to do it, to dedicate their lives to spreading lies about Islam, and in the name of advancing Islam.

            There is so much relevant history here, and you can deny it all you want and quote the liars if you choose. It's your right as an American to remain deceived as long as you wish.

          • Schlomotion

            Are all derogatory remarks based on racism?
            No, only ones in which whole races and ethnicities of people are derided as faking it when they report on their own casualties of invasion or a past crime against humanity. "Paliwood" is is the Jewish equivalent to "Shoah business." In short, Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is racist because its objective is to hide the German genocide of Jews. Shoah business is racist. "Milking the Holocaust for political gain" is not a racist expression, by comparison, if it is demonstrable. Art Spiegelman depicted his father doing it in Maus. Maus, is not an example of "Shoah business." The comic "Palestine" is not an example of "Paliwood."

            the objective facts describing the nearly century long efforts to deceive and swindle the USA
            This is simply a 20th Century antisemitic argument reworked by Jews for use in the 21st Century against Muslims. Anyone such as myself, with equal footing in both centuries will recognize it as such.

            Don't tell me you believe the Palestinian lies about Jenin
            I thoroughly believe that Israel committed a massacre there. l also believe that some of those people were armed militants.

            Israel also has a history of killing UN workers. They also shoot at journalists. I have seen plenty of that footage. Also, increasingly, Israeli police brutality is becoming amply available on the internet.

            and al Dura
            Like the murder of Daniel Pearl, I found all of these killings odious.

            If you think about how massive the influence is of the Islamic world through a fluke of geography (and Western technology), you'd realize their potential to completely dominate global politics if they desired to.
            Not really. They can just spike the oil price periodically.

      • Omar

        Ghostwriter, isn't Schlomotion's real name "Flipside"? Because if it is, Schlomotion would also be bad at names as well as morals. Schlomotion/Flipside is nothing more than an anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist totalitarian fanatic.

    • Frank Figliola

      Yes, Scholmo…, you represent the hypocrisy of the left. "The Assassination of George W. Bush: A Love Story" was published in 2006, and the film, "Death of a President" made its debut on the anniversary of 9/11 at the Toronto Film Festival in 2007. No one from the left protested that these might be over-the-top, or inciting. Quite a testament to the skill with which the Media avoids criticizing the venom pouring from the left in their efforts to defame and crush the right.

      On March 27, 2011, in an interview with Bob Schieffer on Face the Nation, Hillary Clinton said, "There's a different leader in Syria now. Many of the members of Congress…" "have said the believe he's a reformer." this view, embraced by President Obama, illustrates his naiveté in judgement. The agony of the Middle East is the child of Obama's foreign policy. In February, the president said, "One of the proudest things of my 3 years in office is helping to restore a sense of respect for America around the world, a belief that we are not just defined by the size of our military." No, president Obama, we will be defined by the stupidity, absence of general and economic knowledge, malfeasance, lack of principle, and mendacity of your administration!

      • Schlomotion

        Actually, they did protest that they were over the top or inciting. I was there.

  • Steeloak

    Knowing how the Clinton's operate, I can only wonder what price Hillary demanded of Obama for falling on her sword for him. She has never been one to accept blame for anything, or to allow herself to be used by others (she is the one who does the using). I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall when she was asked to take the fall.

    • Kufar Dawg

      Hopefully this will end shrillery's delusions of becoming POTUS. Maybe she can become president of the OIC, but somehow I doubt women are acceptable in that role.

    • Maxie

      No 'fall' in the offing. The Media will 'go dark' on this "blip" of incompetance and will, my cynical voice whispers, soon put all the blame on the Republicans. Worse, the latter will take it lying flat on its collective, clueless, back.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      I think it's expected to end up being a plus politically for Obama in the short-term and Hillary in the long-term.

      It's purely a cynical move having nothing to do with words and concepts like integrity and truth.

  • tagalog

    Why are female journalists and old male journalists moderating the debates? Who decides on the moderators? What is their political agenda (if any)?

    Is it because journalists are believed to be current and knowledgeable about political issues? Why do people believe that? Because the journalists report on political matters?

    What about academics? How about some retired politicians? Historians?

    • kasandra

      "What is their political agenda (if any)?" What do you think? Do you think that on one night they will abandon doing what they've been doing for the past five years – acting as a Praetorian Guard to protect Mr. Obama from the exposure of any unfavorable news and to smite his opponents? I doubt it.

    • BS77

      I'd like to see Michael Savage or Mark L as moderator….or someone equally bold and tough, instead of the usual liberal softies with their mild manners and weak questions.

    • http://www.facebook.com/bryan.schmick Bryan Schmick

      The president is not required to participate in any debates. This means that the challenger has to accept some conditions if he/she wants a debate. The incumbent does have to keep it quasi reasonable though in order to avoid the impression that she/he doesn't want a debate.

  • texasron

    Didn't Obama say that the job was beyound his pay grade?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      That was when he was asked about religion, but I forget the specific question. I think it was related to abortion and when life begins.

      If he was honest, he would have said the job as president will always be beyond him. Honesty was never going to be a strong aspect of his character, to say the least.

      It's a stupid throwaway line that is supposed to show humility towards God. Not quite.

  • jbfulton

    Hilary Clinton can say what she wants about accepting the blame for the attack on OUR Embassy in Benghazi, Libya on September 11, 2012; and she should be held responsible! However, there is another government agency that reports directly to the President that had to know American property/interest and personnel were in danger and knew that the United States Embassy and American personnel were in danger before the event and while during the event; that agency is the Department of Defense! Remember the attack was being televised live for no less than 6-hours. President Obama lied about his lack of knowledge before, during and after the attack.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Remember the attack was being televised live for no less than 6-hours. President Obama lied about his lack of knowledge before, during and after the attack."

      That is what really pisses me off. I've read all kinds of liberal "journalists" defending Obama by referring to the "fog of war" and ancient scenarios that simply don't apply.

      They must all be on heavy drugs. I can't find any other explanation for the massive, widespread ability to sustain self-delusion.

  • chowching259

    There was no responsibility taken by the White House for the violent protest that led to the death of four Americans. The video degrading the Prophet Muhammad must take full blame. Riots in Pakistan followed the news about the Libyan protests which caused 50 deaths. Muslims are not angry at America only the producers of the Blasphemy.

    • PAthena

      What has the video about Muhammed to do with it? If anything, whatever the criticism of the video criticizing Muhammedanism (or the put-up job as described by Walid Shoebat), the murders by Muhammedans in Bengahzi, Libya, support criticisms of Muhammedanism. Poor Muhammed, not recognized as a prophet of anything but death and destruction of those who do not accept him as having revelations from God (Allah)! If he ever existed – see Robert Spencer, Did Muhammed Exist?

    • Jim_C

      That is ridiculous at every level.

      • Kufar Dawg

        When you're defending islamofascism, logic doesn't work.

    • Barbara

      If the video must take the blame for what happened in Benghazi, what was the reason for 9/11 happening? Who are we to blame for that? And for the attack on the World Trade Center in 93? I am quite amazed that Christianity can be vilified and Christ's name be used to curse and the left yells free speech, separation of church from any aspect of our lives, and you see no Christians doing what Muslims do at the slightest perceived wrong done regarding Mohammed or Islam.

    • Kufar Dawg

      I denigrate muhammad the prophetic pedophile and psychopath on a daily basis. I deserve to be murdered by your islamofascist logic, so come get me big boy.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "There was no responsibility taken by the White House for the violent protest that led to the death of four Americans."

      Correct. No accountability was accepted by the Whitehouse. This is obviously pathetic leadership, perhaps even treasonous once all the facts are known.

      "The video degrading the Prophet Muhammad must take full blame. Riots in Pakistan followed the news about the Libyan protests which caused 50 deaths. Muslims are not angry at America only the producers of the Blasphemy."

      Yes, I saw the angry Muslims burning the flag of the production company, and an effigy of the producer. They killed the ambassador thinking he was one of the actors.

  • just the facts

    Hillary's lying to save her fat ass. If it's all her fault, why's she still in office? She should've resigned.

  • Al Sheeber

    She is an outlaw, a career liar and a certified

    Alinsky agitator with plenty of footprints

    from coast to coast0see her bio on this

    web page-discoverthenetwork of Front Page,

    I cannot do better, it is all there

    a lifelong criminal, IMHO she deesrves to be buried under the bus.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "a lifelong criminal, IMHO she deesrves to be buried under the bus."

      If only she'd drag Barrack 'n' Joe with her as soon as possible.

  • BLJ

    Hillary is to blame, but so is Barack HUSSEIN Obama. A real man (which this creep is not) would take responsibility. Not hide under the skirt of another woman.

    Got news for the Chosen One. No one is buying it. The curtain has come down and the emperor has no clothes.

    Obama and his Chicago cabal all need to be thrown in prison. They are the lowest of the low.

  • Jim_C

    Huh, and all this time I thought it was the terrorists at fault!

    This talk of accountability is cute, considering the embassies that were attacked, and ambassadors assassinated, under the previous administration.

    • BLJ

      So it does not bother you that Obama left these people out to dry and lied through his teeth about it? You have claimed you are not on his camp but I am not buying.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      I feel like I'm repeating myself…

      "Huh, and all this time I thought it was the terrorists at fault!"

      The terrorists are the culprit. They are accountable for what they did, we are each accountable for how we behave in our role. The world is slightly more complicated than taking a single event and deciding one person or party is wholly accountable to the exclusion of all others.

      The president is accountable for performing his job. Get it? He is not accountable for earthquakes happening, but he is accountable for running FEMA to some standard. See the distinction? It's the same with terrorism or anything else. He is accountable for his role, and pointing to other causes does nothing to deflect from his accountability.

      OK?

      Can we stop these stupid simplistic defenses of the idiot in office just because of, what, emotional motives?

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "This talk of accountability is cute, considering the embassies that were attacked, and ambassadors assassinated, under the previous administration. "

      Let's talk about it and make your case. It's not just "on his watch" that matters. What matters is how you perform your duties. What matters is how the president performed in his job. He failed. These failures have been clearly articulated all over the place, but I'm happy to start over for you if you need to hear it.

      Or we can start by analyzing any other president or presidents first, just so you know it's not personal. But don't conflate and oversimplify as a means of prematurely ending the dialog. If you're truly confused, I'll work with you to clear it up.

      • Jim_C

        OK, well I appreciate the dialog.

        In what way does this terrorist attack on an embassy differ from all the other attacks on embassies over the last…we can say 30 years, or just the last 10 years if the focus helps?

        • Kufar Dawg

          The lying AFTER the fact, is the issue here. The zero regime attempted to blame a MOVIE for the attack on the US embassy for crissakes. Pull your head out.

          • Jim_C

            YOU guys say "lie." Fox News is pushing "lie." NOBODY else is saying "lie." I am not starting with the foregone conclusion that anyone "lied." The reason that Obama actually got applause at the debate is because people understand that what happened may have been miscommunication, but it was not a "lie," (particularly after the president called it an act of terror in his first public statement after the event). When you look at how the information came back to us through people present at the riots, THEY were saying it was the film.

            It was a terror attack that used the video as a pretext to create a riot. Did the release of the video magically, suddenly "cause" the riot? I think we can all agree that the video was not an automatic trigger. But it obviously played a key role. There are terror attacks and there are riots–but you don't get a riot without inflaming the crowd with something.

            (Now, in these animals' case, that something doesn't need to be much, but…)

  • Ghostwriter

    Please,Jim_C. The Bush Administration had NOTHING to do with this. Much of this lies squarely with President Obama and his failure to see things as they really are. He's living in a fantasy world and so are you. Please come back to reality. You'll be much happier there.

  • jimvee

    I am not so sure she has been thrown under the bus. It could be she is getting out in front and forcing Obama to make a move. The deal with the devil that put Hillary in as Sec. of State, might just be bearing it's rotten fruit now. Axlerod and Jarret have to figure out how to save Obama without sacrificing Hillary. The Clintons can do enormous damage to Obama and his re-election hopes.

    • Maxie

      Can't you see the dust and hear the thundering hoofbeats? That's the Media Calvary riding to the rescue of the whole administration once again!

      • BLJ

        I don't think there is anything those toads in the media can do to save Obama on this one.

        • Kufar Dawg

          Evade, deny, obfuscate, that's been SOP of the current administration to any unpleasant news and the media backs their propaganda without question.

  • Eva

    I wouldn't be surprised if we ever learn that she was paid A LOT to accept the blame. Clintons will sell their country for money.

    • Kufar Dawg

      The Clintons have made millions of dollars off of business dealings with islamofascist gulf states. The more perspicacious might call it bribery, but then again maybe not.

  • zsqpwxxeh

    But she hasn't resigned. She takes responsibility for a security debacle that cost American lives, blatantly lied about it, and she just keeps on truckin'.

    Funny, isn't it?

    • WilliamJamesWard

      What is responsibility for a leftist?……Responsibility=Leftist=0……….meaningless
      blather from Clinton……..William

    • objectivefactsmatter

      She expects kudos for "standing up" but she does not expect to be held accountable. Her constituents are leftists, remember?

      I know you do, just saying.

  • Moishe Pupick

    Tu., 10/16/12 common era

    So now Hillary is a martyr for Saint Obummer. I guess that in D.C., that's the way the cookie crumbles.

  • Betty

    well she should have known better. it is easier if you tell the truth to start with. then it want come back to bight you. the more you lie. the more you have to lie to cover the lie to start with

  • Asher

    So Hillary takes the fall, but she is not the head honcho in charge of National security. Ambassador Stephens requested additional security because he feared an attack was coming. Why in the world didn't they give him the security he requested…better to be safe than sorry…this whole unfortunate tragedy could have been prevented, once again sort of a complacent response from the Obama administration and the State Department when it comes to terrorism….I will never trust any of them on any national security issues ever again, no matter how the investigation comes out!

  • guest

    Hillarys aide is a high values muslim terrorist supporter. Muslim brotherhood has filled the state dept and homeland security. MB sets foreign policy. The military has been crippled by MB complaining about their muslim terrorist training. The military can not vote with change in voter regulations done secretly by Obama.

    It was always Obamas' intention to use her at some point. Well, there goes her political campaign future.. May be she can involve Obama in some bank land fraud deal to get him back. She sure is one dumb tart.

  • guest

    But she gave them $2 billion we had to borrow…. No strings attached! Lots of weapons to kill Christians and burn churches, I guess.

    The plan of our anti-colonial bring America down to a third world power presidents goal.
    I
    ts hard to see which parasite is worse.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "But she gave them $2 billion we had to borrow…. No strings attached! Lots of weapons to kill Christians and burn churches, I guess."

      Don't forget they need to "defend" themselves from "Israeli aggression."

      Israeli aggression in the middle east is their refusal to die.

  • pierce

    Hilary sort of reminds me of DudleyDoRight. She is doing this because Barack is either able to admit failure, and won't, or Barack is unable to admit he is a failure, which he is. He has failed to do the right thing on behalf of the American people. Hilary loves this country too much to let Barack take the hit.

  • SHmuel HaLevi

    I am on my way to Jerusalem ETA about 9am, for meetings with associates.
    There is one individual in this otherwise quite well balanced Blog, that is tasked by his controllers to distribute freely a vast amount of male bovine dudu.
    Israel does NT need and many of those not infested by State Department cash utterly reject any provisions or interference by US so called Jews or the administration as a whole.
    By all means, keep that "help" to assuage the huge needs of the US citizens burdened by now moving on 17 trillion dollars non payable debt.
    As a significant number of zombied voters still support the person occupying the WH, the whole structure is suspect and do not be surprised if Ambassador Stevens, is not the last to be attended by the loving caretakers from the Islamic cult of death masses.
    That is what Islam does. Slaughter babies, blow up buildings, trains, aircraft, clubs, wedding halls, buses, shoot school girls, burn Churches, rape reporters, and themselves as well, ghastly garbage that is.
    Again. we wish the good people in the US the best but I doubt that the leaders now there do so as well.

  • R.C.

    Hillary has spent her miserable life under the bus–under one man or another!

  • http://davidballweg092.xanga.com/ annuity payments taxable

    If you want to improve your experience only keep visiting this web page and be

    updated with the most recent information posted here.