HILLARY CLINTON: "US 'didn't lose a single person' in Libya" Hellooooo...BENGHAZI!

Democrat candidate HILLARY CLINTON CONVENIENTLY FORGETS BENGHAZI FATALITIES! Who is surprised?

Clinton commits Benghazi gaffe, saying US 'didn't lose a single person' in Libya
Published March 15, 2016 FoxNews.com

Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton committed her second gaffe in as many days on the campaign trail Monday night, claiming that the U.S. "didn't lose a single person" in Libya during her time as secretary of state.

Clinton made the comment defending her push for regime change in the war-torn North African nation at an Illinois town hall hosted by MSNBC.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/15/clinton-commits-benghazi-gaffe-saying-us-didnt-lose-single-person-in-libya.html

It doesn't matter to her. She made that perfectly clear when she screamed it at a the investigating law makers.

PkrBum wrote:It doesn't matter to her. She made that perfectly clear when she screamed it at a the investigating law makers.

HRC considers everyone to be beneath her, including those who support her.......unless they are wealthy.

I have never been a Hillary fan. You might say I despised everything she was. I was so happy when President Obama was successful in winning the primary in 2008. I have changed. I have always known how incredibly bright and analytic she has been. She really has never been a very good politician. We do not need stupid or inexperienced people in the office of President. It simply has been shown in history not to work out well. It appears that I am going to vote for her in November. The part I find so disgusting is that four tragic deaths have somehow in Orwellian doublethink become more important than hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and almost 5k dead American kids and up to 30k wounded warriors.......and this blunder is ignored by the very people who argue that President Obama lost Iraq, and now argue that President Obama and SOS Clinton lied to the American public......this entire absurdity was based on the fact that somehow Romney would have won but for the country not believing President Obama in the Rose Garden saying it was a terrorist attack, and that the concern about the video somehow superceded the obvious, which intelligent people understood, but the slow failed to grasp. Hillary Clinton is the most experienced and capable to serve as President in over a hundred years. Nobody is close. Yea, I would be lying that I have reservations about her ambition and tendency to stretch the truth, but it is time for competency, and not this absurd concept that if someone inherited millions, that building golf courses is equivalent to government experience.....absurd.

While you ignore the big picture that SHE created in libya... see the hillary thread and lets see your equivocation.

https://pensacoladiscussion.forumotion.com/t24017-hillary-s-libya-from-a-progressive-org

Libya was a success. I have no ambivalence about the same. Mr. K was overthrown and America did NOT take the lead. The lead was Europe and as usual the French, English, and Germans had enough sense to figure that it was not worth further intrusion in the Middle East. The success of Libya is President Obama not having America lead, but follow in this collective action. If you look at the larger historical context of the Middle East, the battle has only just begun for the people to overthrow the direct and collateral chains of colonialism. Mr. K and his military coup was part and parcel of the evolution from colonialism, and in fact he was the poster child of the dictatorships which characterized the anti colonial movement, but in the end there will have to be political evolution which will be violent revolution. The idea that radical Islam will hijack the path to modernity and empowerment of the people of the middle east is static sophomoric analysis.....no Libya to be free, like America had a price to pay in its revolution, and empowerment of the exploited will be a difficult journey, and this idea that the tribal historical conflicts of Libya will somehow be in anyway influenced by American policy is funny. The Europeans and USA helped get rid of Mr. K, but the evolution was inevitable.....modernity will win in the end.....it always does.

2seaoat wrote:Libya was a success.  I have no ambivalence about the same.  Mr. K was overthrown and America did NOT take the lead.  The lead was Europe and as usual the French, English, and Germans had enough sense to figure that it was not worth further intrusion in the Middle East.   The success of Libya is President Obama not having America lead, but follow in this collective action.  If you look at the larger historical context of the Middle East, the battle has only just begun for the people to overthrow the direct and collateral chains of colonialism.   Mr. K and his military coup was part and parcel of the evolution from colonialism, and in fact he was the poster child of the dictatorships which characterized the anti colonial movement, but in the end there will have to be political evolution which will be violent revolution.  The idea that radical Islam will hijack the path to modernity and empowerment of the people of the middle east is static sophomoric analysis.....no Libya to be free, like America had a price to pay in its revolution, and empowerment of the exploited will be a difficult journey, and this idea that the tribal historical conflicts of Libya will somehow be in anyway influenced by American policy is funny.   The Europeans and USA helped get rid of Mr. K, but the evolution was inevitable.....modernity will win in the end.....it always does.

Success huh? Where do you get your news? Bernie vehemently disagrees with your apologist approach to the HRC and BHO sponsored disaster called Libya. And for good reason, it was as much a mistake as Iraq.

http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/12/18/sanders-libya-disaster-evidence-clinton-learned-little-iraq-mistake

It's a concern what you're able to ignore. You either didn't read the thread or you're willing to compromise ethics.

Tell me how you depose the military dictatorships which set up in our puppet colonial artificial national boundaries? I mean really, does anybody study history, or have even a semblance of knowledge of the middle east before trying to play short term political soccer? The battle of modernity has little to do with America, but is a more generalized western civilization vs traditional and historical blockades to achieve modernity. Do you think the traditional Jim Crow South and its deeply embedded traditions simply magically evolved because Ike sent federal troops? Hardly. It took a cultural revolution over 70 years and yet we think traditional foes to modernity in the Middle East will fold or offer no resistance. The funniest thing is that the Neocons have hijacked this ongoing battle and named parts of the American Interstate system for this "war on terrorism" .....what war?

The success of Libya is that America did not lead. It took a minimalist stand in conjunction with the Europeans and the chaos in Libya and its historical tribal conflicts are no more reflective on America or Hillary than the fellow selling hot dogs at the ballpark is contributory to the scoring on the field. No, Mr. K killed American kids and thirty years we sent agents, planes, and bombs to kill the bastard, but his own people did the deed with our assistance and the Europeans assistance. If your measure of success in the middle east is order under a dictatorship, then you simply do not understand the battle of modernity.....something some of us studied over thirty years ago, and the premise has not changed a bit.......and we are winning the battle of modernity.....Iran is an example of citizens moderating dictatorships as that society evolves in real time.

Wow... lol. You could've just said that you didn't read the thread... for fear of seeing the truth obviously.

Go to the other thread and break it down... or go sit at the end of the bench. Even salon is capable of objective reason.

2seaoat wrote: Libya was a success. I have no ambivalence about the same. Mr. K was overthrown and America did NOT take the lead. The lead was Europe and as usual the French, English, and Germans had enough sense to figure that it was not worth further intrusion in the Middle East. The success of Libya is President Obama not having America lead, but follow in this collective action. If you look at the larger historical context of the Middle East, the battle has only just begun for the people to overthrow the direct and collateral chains of colonialism. Mr. K and his military coup was part and parcel of the evolution from colonialism, and in fact he was the poster child of the dictatorships which characterized the anti colonial movement, but in the end there will have to be political evolution which will be violent revolution. The idea that radical Islam will hijack the path to modernity and empowerment of the people of the middle east is static sophomoric analysis.....no Libya to be free, like America had a price to pay in its revolution, and empowerment of the exploited will be a difficult journey, and this idea that the tribal historical conflicts of Libya will somehow be in anyway influenced by American policy is funny. The Europeans and USA helped get rid of Mr. K, but the evolution was inevitable.....modernity will win in the end.....it always does.

Sorry my good friend, I just couldn't help myself.