What do Hillary Clinton supporters think of her role in Benghazi?
Not a Clinton supporter so more objective.The main cause of the American deaths in the Benghazi incident was reduced security as a result of budget cuts by Republican-led Congress, so all of the accusations and investigations were an attempt by those Republicans to deflect from their own culpability.When in U.S. history have the president and/or secretary of state been held personally responsible for attacks on Americans the way the Republicans tried to hang Obama and Clinton foe this? Was GWBush held liable to such a degree for 9/11? How about Reagan after nearly 300 Marines were killed in the bombing of their barracks in Lebanon?Typically, Congress investigates to try to learn what occurred to prevent a repeat, not to fix blame.
How can Barack Obama criticize Hillary Clinton on her Iran vote, when he co-sponsored the same bill, in April?
He has been criticizing Hillary for her vote in favor of labeling the Iranian National Guard a terrorist organization, but interestingly enough Barack Obama never showed up to make that vote, when all the other candidates at the debate did, never spoke against until the vote was already, and now we find out he held the same position as her? “Who said this? “Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.” Later in the same speech, he said: “Make no mistake, if the Iranians and Syrians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or a staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening.” George Bush? Nope. The latest from Dick Cheney? Guess again. Language from Kyl-Lieberman? Sorry. That was Senator Obama in late 2006 making the case for why maintaining a military force in Iraq is necessary to constrain Iran's ambitions. But that was then. This is now: Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April. Nevermind that his colleague from Illinois – Dick Durbin – voted the same way as Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman and said “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.” Today, in order to justify his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Obama says that such language is bellicose and gives the President a blank check to take the country to war. But if Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldn’t he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it? Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, skipped the vote and spoke out only after the vote” From Msnbc And btw, I am not supporting Hillary Clinton..
Are Democrats desperate to sweep this Hillary email scandal under the rug?
They wish it was that simple. It's not just an email scandal. It also involves removing classified markings to transmit classified documents through unclassified means. It's also about Hillary's unofficial blackberry. It's also about a broader corruption investigation involving her use of her office as SoS to solicit funding for the Clinton Foundation and her campaign. Hillary has a HUGE mess on her hands. If by some miracle she gets the nomination from her party she WILL NOT become President.