Today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin questioned Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about the Sept. 11 attack at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.
Johnson asked about why the administration misled the public by saying the attack was the outcome of a protest over a video when it was actually a planned assault by terrorists.
Clinton’s response was a head-spinning contortion: “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they 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.”
What difference does it make? What difference does it make? One difference is that it was neither of the scenarios she just mentioned. If your job is to figure out what happened and do something about it, prevent it’s recurrence, you need to know what happened, how, why and by whom. These are basics of solving a problem. You deconstruct the elements and see which ones you might anticipate in the future. That’s what difference it makes.
And there is talk of her running for president?
In Hillary Clinton’s world her answer “What difference does it matter?” is the perfect answer, she took a bullet for Obama after an appropriate time, and the election had passed, and the media has moved on. Rand Paul’s questioning was much more telling but it’s unlikely that will be seen on television, he actually faulted her. He, however, didn’t go far enough, that would have required Her Highness be asked by what definition was that site considered to be an embassy or even an adjunct to an embassy and was she watching the scene unfold live. The media will parse her every word to show presidential-like steely determination and righteousness, brave Hillary under pressure. I believe the answer to her 2008 campaign question “Who would you rather have answering the telephone at 3AM” has been answered, that would be anyone but her if she’s going to take months to respond to questions about taking responsibility. And who can believe she would be stepping down if this issue wasn’t in question, closing the case by investigation is common police practice and this gives her 4 years to rebuild her resume for 2016.
The question to which she was responding had something to do with why she didn’t personally interfere with the FBI interviews at Ramstein Air Force Base during the week of the terrorist attack, and why all the aspect of the attack were not more quickly disseminated to the public.
As Hillary correctly said, Who cares? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.
I can’t figure out why you disagree with that.
Best of luck running against her in 2014, fellas!
I am voting for Joe Biden.
But seriously, Biden has a better chance with me than Hillary would.
I don’t understand why you guys won’t support your own VP.
I would happily vote for him over just about any Republican candidate, since I agree with just about all of his policy positions.
But Hillary is, as even the most die-hard conservative would concede, both more disciplined and more charismatic, and would be both a better President and better candidate.
In fact, I supported her in 2008 over that skinny young fella from Illinois.
“both more disciplined and more charismatic” translated as better liar.
“Prevent it from ever happening again” is the most ignorant statement in vogue today. Its mere utterance is an insult to the survivors of any victim of vicious unconscionable individuals that kill for any reason, real or imagined, and “vicious unconscionable individuals” fits the vast majority of politicians. That “prevent it from ever happening again” is followed closely by the similarly ignorant comment that say something or other will “bring closure”. This hearing “brings closure” for Hillary Clinton and the too timid members of the committee as their report will equivocate in favor of the administration leadership. While the president called Benghazi a “bump in the road”, this particular queen of mean told the feckless committee and the hapless American people that shit happens.
“Queen of mean”
Hillary Clinton is “more charismatic”? You dream, nyp, there is no definition or interpretation of charisma that fits her, she is a smug, overbearing, self-serving, husband’s coattail riding, pant suit wearing, tyrant. When the Progressives chose an unknown inexperienced Chicago street hustler in preference to her in 2008 it should tell you, and other Clinton idolators, that she was too radical even for them. She was a hanger on, if there had been no Governor or President Bill Clinton, there would be no famous Hillary Clinton. “Charismatic”, my behind.
You really get a kick out of making crypto-racist references to the President, don’t you?
Crypto Racist nice new buzz phrase. This would be like only those with brown skin pigment being allowed to use certain overtly racist words while those without that skin pigment are not allowed to use them. Lets keep marginalizing speech.
Sure. If Vernon Clayson called the President a “pimp” or a “strapping young buck” the reference would just be too obvious. So instead he delights in going a degree or two deeper, and repeatedly characterizes a Professor at the University of Chicago and the former President of the Harvard Law review as “a common street hustler.”
It gets across the same message of racial disdain, while allowing Clayson to snicker that he really isn’t saying anything racially offensive. At the same time, he gets a little thrill from venturing toward the rank racial epithets of his youth.
Like if I was to call my own brother my brother, cause I dont have the correct skin pigment to call my brother …. my brother.
No, not at all.
So its ok for those with skin color to call me things but not for me to make code for them.
And so it goes.
“Those with skin color”??
Let’s cut the crap. You don’t play games with racial epithets. If some black guy called you a name, that’s bad of him. If Vernon Clayson decides to get cute by making crypto-racist remarks about the President, that’s bad of him, and I’m calling him out on it. Don’t make excuses for the guy.
Lighten up nyp.
From the urban dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=street%20hustler:
A hustler is the way one lives his life. Going out on the streets or wherever making money and working hard for it. A hustler is not lazy he’s consistently out earning money. He gets the money by using his smarts and outcunning everyone out there. A hustler has ambition and a more serious approach to life then that of a gangsta or a pimp. Hes more mature, and doesn’t neccessarily carry a gun. IT CAN APPLY TO ANY RACE (capitals mine), and its the way you uphold and carry yourself.
I think this exonerates Vernon. As a matter of fact, the definition given almost makes it a compliment.
Bullshit
You cant use the word “black” that way anymore Nyp.
Then it looks as though “urban entrepreneur” is the best description we can attribute to the President Obama’s early life.
bullshit squared
Nyp is upset
[...] angrily retorted under [...]
Check your references, nyp, Obama was never a professor, tenured or otherwise, for lack of a better definition, he was a lecturer. He is president but that doesn’t free him of criticism, he isn’t the perfect man you seem to believe he is. On hustlers, there’s hustlers and then there’s hustlers, just to show balance, Bill Clinton was a hustler, ask the intern and some of the other females he came on to. Wait, there’s more, Al Gore was and is still a hustler, so is Al Sharpton, so are most other religious icons. What politician sits back waiting for great things to happen in their state or district of their own accord, they allot funds out to the future that haven’t been collected yet.
Bullshit cubed. You repeatedly made crypto-racist (or, perhaps, just genuinely racist) references to the President as a “common Chicago street hustler.” You didn’t mean it in the sense that he was an ambitious, striving over-achiever. You thought you were clerverly associating him with the image of a pimp, a low-level drug dealer, a thug. Now, when called out on your rancid racist rhetoric, you disingenuously claim that you were describing the President in the same manner as which you would describe President Clinton, Vice-President Gore or “religious icons.” Nobody buys it.
Just stop using this blog to make ugly racial references about the President.
And by the way, here is what the University of Chicago Law School says about the Pesident’s 12-year teaching career:
“Statement Regarding Barack Obama
The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as “Senior Lecturer.” From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.”
Determining whether someone is a racist requires the ability to read minds.
________________________________
Vernon knows what he wrote. NYP as usual is making up positions and applying his spin on meanings of things other people write. This would be ok if it were face to face where body language adds its meaning, that is not possible in this place so words must be taken exactly as they are written. NYP does not do this, in fact he has very poor comprehension skills in this type of environment.
“You repeatedly made crypto-racist (or, perhaps, just genuinely racist) references to the President as a “common Chicago street hustler.” You didn’t mean it in the sense that he was an ambitious, striving over-achiever. You thought you were clerverly associating him with the image of a pimp, a low-level drug dealer, a thug”.
Precisely, nyp, except for your term “racist. Are you claiming that there are no white or asian “common Chicago street hustlers? Or “pimps, low-level drug dealers or thugs”? Why would any sane person assume that the term “common Chicago street hustler” says anything at all about ethnicity?