Hillary just ate Trump's lunch on foreign policy

get a grip on reality

"Army Lt. Gen. Dana Chipman told former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta in a transcribed interview by the panel in January that “nothing could have affected what occurred in Benghazi” to prevent the deaths of four Americans in the immediate response to the attacks, the letter released by Democrats states.
Story Continued Below

“I think you ordered exactly the right forces to move out and to head toward a position where they could reinforce what was occurring in Benghazi or in Tripoli or elsewhere in the region,” Chipman said, according to the letter. “And, sir, I don’t disagree with the actions you took, the recommendations you made, and the decisions you directed.”


http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/house-benghazi-committee-lawyer-american-lives-223207

 

Lol! Poor answer! Doesn't tell us a thing.

 

So, we find that you totally made that up. Not telling the truth seems to be all we get from you. A Canadian mining company sold the company to the Russians. That is not proving Clinton sold the Russians uranium. Lol! Just one of many fabrications. No one is surprised.

Really? I don't recall her sharing the same views with him once it was found out Bush lied about the war?

Yea, what record? Do you have a link proving this?

How is it that Clinton turned over the country to ISIS terrorists, when ISIS was a result of the Iraq war?

How do you know it was classified before it was sent? The emails were marked unclassified.

We also know that those classified emails were marked unclassified too.

Sorry, wrong again! She spread misinformation that was given to her.

Sure they lied. Bush and the country already knew Saddam had chemical weapons, because we sold them to him.

Because they received false information. So, put your silly "duh" back in your pocket. It deserves to stay with you.

She told the truth. That was the slam dunk.

 

It doesn't tell YOU a thing.

 

So an article with a link that was written by the New York Times is now your definition of me totally fabricating a story?

Bill Clinton was president before Bush, and he was telling the same lie apparently. Maybe he got that lie from Bill, or one of the Clinton's surrogates like SOS Albright? They were saying the same things for years to justify Clinton's attacks on Iraq. Oh, don't remember Clinton attacking Iraq?

We know that they were classified before they were sent because the IG report said they were classified before they were sent.

Nobody is even claiming they were marked "unclassified". Clinton is claiming they were not marked "classified". But of course, one of her emails instructs her people to remove the classified markings and then transmit the emails, which is another felony.

Yeah, that is what the Bush administration has said, they were given misinformation from the intelligence community. I guess both of them are using the same lies!

I love how liberals can say conflicting things in the same sentence practically. "Bush lied, Saddam didn't have the WMD's that we sold to Saddam!"

Oh, I noticed that all the same stupid hate America crowd always spread that lie too, that we were the ones who sold him chemical weapons. Oh, America is so evil, whaaa whaaaaaa!

 

No, it's my definition of you taking a story by the NYT and fabricating your own story about what it is saying. It doesn't say what you say it is saying.

If George Bush got that information from Bill Clinton, then that is the smoking gun that tells us all that George Bush is a total .... ....

That's funny, because your story doesn't match this one; http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/08/12/myths-and-facts-on-hillary-clintons-email-and-r/204913

Wrong again! The Bush Administration was giving out misinformation, they weren't receiving it. Watch Hubris! It clears up any doubt about the Bush lies; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5FaMbnINwc

If it is wrong, then now is your chance to disprove the information from Hubris. Let's see if you can unravel possible lies by this documentary? I say you won't even try, because all you have are your own fabrications to go on, and nothing else. Good luck! I'll be waiting for your rebuttal. Or for that matter, any rebuttal by anyone.

 

Well this is the dumbest thing I've ever read here, and the bar is pretty low.

 

And that's all they have going for them; their own hate. This just proves that the Right has dissolved into one big pile of it's own .....

 

Neo-con?

Media matter is a far left extremist propaganda organization for the Democratic Party and anything they say is total lies. If that is what you are using for information then you are relying of lies, propaganda and falsehoods of the left.

Sorry. Once again you are using biased sources for information. Rachel Maddow is a proven liar and I can't stand to watch more than 10 seconds worth of that smarmy, snide, snickering, thinks that she's smart and clever but she's stupid and weird, nerdy lesbian.

Can't just post a quote from a reliable source? No, of course not, because it's not true.

And according to you, the New York Times leftist paper of record is fabricating stories about Hillary's corruption.

What documentary? Rachel Maddow show is not a documentary.

Here is Clinton and the democrats telling George Bush's "lie" some even before George Bush became president:

[video=youtube;TUeIrUsApuE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUeIrUsApuE[/video]

 

Patriot News?

You DO remember that DONALD TRUMP said we were "lied into the Iraq War".....right???

 

Yeah. By NeoCons and Democrats, right? They were all telling the same lie.

 

And Hubris proves you wrong. I think it is hilarious how you can dismiss a documentary as far left extremist propaganda and you haven't a shred of evidence to rebuke the story Hubris presents. Now I wonder why that is?

 

Your link does not say anywhere in there that said Hillary sold the Russians nuclear material. You are simply fabricating stories that do not exist.

 

I don't know. Don't know who that is or what kind of propaganda they have to spout.

I'm not going to waste one minute watching your Nazi propaganda films.

 

Because you can't deal with the truth.

 

Yeah it does. You just don't know how to read between the lines.

Whoever may have thought that I was stating that Hillary brought nuclear material in a suitcase and sold it to Russians in exchange cash is too dumb to be a member of the human race.

What I am saying is that there is a quid pro quo. That's Latin for those of you in Rio Vista.

 

Whoever thought you said anything other than the exact words you typed, and wasn't trying to use that to fabricate a fairy tale, is a complete (*)(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

What truth? I don't know what you are talking about? A Rachel Maddow show?

No, Rachel Maddow is not my idea of truth. She a liar.

 

Right. And just to be clear, the Russians got nuclear material, the Clinton's got $500,000.00.

 

Just let it go. You've already made a fool of yourself by not engaging the facts of the documentary I provided, because you can't. You have nothing to debate, so go get a life.

 

Let's face the facts. Hillary is an expert in foreign affairs. Trump is totally incompetent. Do you want an expert or an idiot running our foreign policy?

 

And nothing in there says the Clinton's sold them the material, which is "EXACTLY" what you said. You're just a story teller and a waste of time.

 

Hillary's foreign policy track record is a train wreck. It's worse than a train wreck. She has destroyed two countries, killed hundreds of thousands, and created a million refugees.

 

That's were stupid people don't understand the meaning of quid pro quo.

- - - Updated - - -

Rachel Maddow is not a documentary.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quid pro quo Has nothing to do with the statement you gave that said, "Hillary sold the Russians nuclear material".