She debates in time slots when comparative few are watching, is never given follow-up questioning for her answers regarding Benghazi, money laundering in her quid-pro-crow scandal, her criminal involvement with her email server and has enlisted the support of her party in her fight against Sanders and that other guy running against her. Why? When we roll in the scandals of her "husband," she knows, full well, how volatile she is as a candidate and how difficult these issues are when the campaign season begins (after the primary season). Her hiding is an admission of her own volatility.
On September 20, 1984, there was a truck-bomb explosion at the U.S. embassy annex in Aukar, Lebanon, just outside Beirut. Twenty-four people were killed. It was third terrorist bombing aimed at U.S. interests in Lebanon in a year and a half.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Ronald Reagan do on September 21, 1984? He made three campaign appearances in Iowa.
He was running for president. Two Americans were killed, sadly. There was no cover-up, no twisting of the facts, no lies. And why is a 31 year event important? You, of course, will have no answer as you continue to manufacture issues out of the past.
DeleteFAR more embassy attacks occurred under Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush than have under Obama, and that Republican in Congress never investigated Reagan or Bush for their failures.
ReplyDeleteThere were 13 attacks on embassies and 60 deaths under President George W. Bush.
TRUE
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/12/john-garamendi/prior-benghazi-were-there-13-attacks-embassies-and/
No investigations because there were no cover-ups. Libya is important because Obama was pretending that he had won the war on terror, a blatant lie and the world has gone to hell because of Obama.
DeleteBy the way, I am not going to debate Reagan. It is polintless and you know that. You do it because you have nothing else to say. Try living in the Present, for a change.
"Try living in the Present, for a change." - says the guy who talks about Democrats being 'racist' because of the KKK and the southern dixiecrats of the 50's and early 60's.
DeleteThat is me setting the record straight about the Democrat Party as you repeatedly go back in time to argue the the GOP is responsible for the KKK and Jim Crow and segregation. You go back in time with a lie and I counter with the truth.
DeleteSo, comment still stands. Try living in the present for a change . . . . . and, btw, did you explain why you went back to Reagan when that has NOTHING to do with the present? Of course not.
I never said the GOP was historically responsible for the KKK. What I said, and what is TRUE is the neoconfederates and the white bigots have found a home in the GOP. Clearly. Trump is your man.
DeleteBS. You and your Marxist buds have been blamming the KKK, Jim Crow and segregation on Republicans for the past 4 decades. I could come up with 70 articles documenting this, is I wanted to do the work.
DeleteThat last statement is also a knowing lie on your part. You know it is a lie, yet you write it into your comments. You couldn't win a debate with me if you had the truth on your side, so trying to win with a lie is out of the question.
You are the king of lies and hate. Remember when you wrote this:
Delete"Obama is going to Ford, who rejected his help back in 2009, to claim credit for the auto industry's "recovery," while speaking at a plant which is closed due to lack of sales . . . did I get that right?"
Now this:
http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/28/news/companies/ford-earnings/index.html
Looking forward to another Clinton administration. Good days are ahead. You will never see another republican president in your life. Mark my words.
ReplyDeleteSince neither of us is a prophet, no point in denying what you cannot prove or evidence.
ReplyDeleteOnly a woman could graduate from Wellesley and Yale, pass the bar, serve as a U.S. Senator and the Secretary of State, and have "no accomplishments" in the claims of lesser men.
ReplyDeleteDidn't say she was uneducated. In her days a Senator, she did not sponsor a single successful piece of legislation and we all know what she did to the Middle East as Sec of State (gun running into Syria; watched as we failed in Afghanistan; watched as ISIS grew to an impossible size; praised Assad as a trend setting rebel . . . . . so "no" she has accomplished next to nothing.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteI deleted the above because I am going to post the Anonymous comment to the main page. Thanks for the comment. Don't know if it is accurate, but the effort seems to be good.
Delete