It was a least a week. Denise is trying to cover this up just like Hillary, putting their fingers in their ears and going la la la la la how dare you ask questions to Queen Clinton.

CowDung -

President Obama called it an "Act of Terror" on the very next day, September 12, 2012 at the White House... Watch the 2nd Obama/Willard Debate and see Willard get smacked down on the same issue.

Hillary also called it a "Terrorist Attack" on September 12, 2012.

Sorry you were in your cave and missed it...

John Wilson- Even the MSNBC leftnut wing couldn't state that as accurate. And if that is so, then why wouldn't he have fired Susan Rice? Instead, the "idiot" wanted to make her part of the king's court. Shame, shame, shame...

@ John Wilson. As a low information voter I will do u a favor and clue you into the fact s. Obama did a interview fairly quickly after 9-11 with Obama . He wouldnt call it terrorism . So you are saying he called it terrorism on 9-12 (aka the Candy Crowley narrative which she apologized for ) ...But he wouldnt call it terrorism after 9-12? You are clearly a liberal when you cant believe your lying eyes.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/05/Proof-Obama-Refused-to-Call-Benghazi-Terror-CBS-Covered-Up

Here's the link of the 60 minutes interview.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/11/05/Proof-Obama-Refused-to-Call-Benghazi-Terror-CBS-Covered-Up

Skinnydude- John Wilson can't see it through the dreamy eyes they have with liar-in-chief.

skinnyDUDE -

The real skinny is you are short on FACTS.

YOU are offering me a breitbart internet site to PROVE you are RIGHT?

This is one of the most right wing, disingenuous, fake and flakey fundamentalist christian rags in America... why do you not just cite the Bible… you were probably home schooled by Santorum too!

Keep your profoundly WISHFUL THINKING to yourself!

Craig –

YOU and [THE FACTS] reside on two different planets…

"With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans," she said. "Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided they'd 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."

skinnyDUDE -

So, "Obama did a interview fairly quickly after 9-11 with Obama."

How did that go my psychotic friend?

Did Obama do a thorough interview with Obama?

Was anything of any significance revealed?

Look, my low-forehead friend, please get back on your medication(s)...

So what is the answer Wilson? Even a single digit like you knows four people were killed, but no one wants to answer the damn question.
Deflect and change the subject now.... we all are used to your tactics.

Wilson when you made this typo, was it your psychosis that caused it?

morninmist -

I just loved the Hillary smack down!

Johnson is just a simply, simply little boy, attempting to gain political points from engaging the most political perceptive and personable woman in all of America… what a beating!

Craig -

Dragon Naturally Speaking V12 has several flaws in their spell-check software.

"Johnson is just a simply inept little boy, attempting to gain political points from engaging the most political perceptive and personable woman in all of America… what a beating!"

John Wilson: So you are trying to tell me your typo's are due to software issues, but skinny dude's typo's are a flaw in his character?

John,

I have read your comments on this section. I couldn't care when they new what they new. The problem is not in the peripheral movements of the liberal media or government. The problem lies with the fact that there were requests for more security and the lack of response by this administration to give it to them. We can all speculate as to why but we'll never know the true answer. My personal issues lies with the fact that Hillary is taking responsibility for the actions that she says she never knew about to begin with, the fact that she says she is more worried about bringing people to justice (side note - they told they knew who was involved and where they were but haven't done a thing about it) and the fact that the administration lied, continuously, about the entire affair. I will not get into a war of, who shot John, because it is pointless with liberals. The fact remains that the administration screwed up and is trying to pass it off as a bump in the road. If Hillary thinks that we, as US citizens working for the government, should not have beefed up security at times then my suggestion to her is to walk around without it as the Secretary of State.

Craig –

skinnyDUDE’s “Obama interviewing Obama” hardly qualifies as a “typo.” I do not know skinnyDUDE so I cannot adequately discuss his character; however, his writings are indicative of a very disordered and chaotic mind, which I would characterize as psychotic ideation.

Now, you have had enough of my attention for today… perhap for the entire week.

Ruble's Conscience -

It should really come as no surprise to any conscious American that our government lies to us; they do so frequently and for many different reasons... that is simply obvious.

I will say that having a HUGE MILITARY PRESENCE in Benghazi was TOTALLY INCONSISTENT WITH OUR GOALS AND MISSION(s) at that time. It remains so even to this day.

Furthermore, the 5-6 additional personnel that were requested, would only have culminated in us now honoring 9-10 dead American’s, rather than 4.

The ARB has recommended 29 changes and they are being implemented; there are ongoing investigations, backchannel action and some suspects in the attack are being followed 24/7. [We do not necessarily want the foot soldiers in this attack here, we want the mastermind, the financer and the entire organization] We did not kill bin Laden in four months and it is doubtful we will bring this entire tragedy to a final resolution very soon. We learn, as do our enemies, from each encounter.

You might hope for more, wish for something better, but this is the way it is.

Wait for a few more years, when most of our enemies in the middle east and elsewhere have thousands of drones, with an almost unlimited reach, armed with hellfire missiles, Sarin gas and Anthrax ready to deliver to America. That makes our current fight with Iran over their acquisition of a nuclear weapon look like child’s play…

John,

You obviously do not have a clue as to the units that are reactionary forces. Did I say we needed a huge military presence. As to your comment that we would have had 9 dead - not true. Two armed men held off advances on the compound for almost 7 hours. If they had 5 more they could have taken the ragtag band of warriors out. Oh, not to mention that Specter or an armed drone was on station above the compound but our administration would not let it fire. How do I know this? Because one of the men defending was "painting the target" with infared. You do not paint a target unless you have firepower in the air. There was a window of 8 hours when we could have done something and Obama did nothing.

Oh, and John? Best to stick with your liberal talking points as opposed to get into a discussion on small arms tactics, military reactionary firepower and urban warfare with someone who has clearly been in those situations and knows what they are talking about.

John Wilson wrote: “President Obama called it an "Act of Terror" on the very next day…”

B.O. did indeed call the Benghazi attack “an act of terror”, but did not call it a terrorist attack. A terrorist is one that plans and orchestrates events designed to inflict terror on a nation or group in order to force them into a course of action they normally would not take. An ‘act of terror” may or may not have been planned, and it is the latter that B.O. was trying to convince American’s that happened when he stuck by his initial claim that the event was caused by a poorly made movie on YouTube that spontaneously angered average Muslims.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/11/05/benghazi-attack/1684503/

It’s becoming apparent that Johnny suffers from Marijuana Derangement Syndrome. Of his 7 responses just under CowDung’s comments, he slung out six insults that were totally unnecessary:

“Sorry you were in your cave and missed it…”

“The real skinny is you are short on FACTS”

“Keep your profoundly WISHFUL THINKING to yourself!”

“YOU and [THE FACTS] reside on two different planets…”

“How did that go my psychotic friend?”

“Look, my low-forehead friend, please get back on your medication(s)...”

It's a poor debater that has to rely on insults to keep his opponent quite rather than the facts or enlightened thought!

Ruble’s Conscience –

Wrong on all points. The purpose of the mission was to maintain a low profile. This compound – not an embassy – was being watch 24/7 by insurgents, and everyone knew that. Further, this compound was a CIA headquarters base and the total time it took to become completely overrun was less than 6-hours.

Two armed men never did hold off the advances for 7 hours. I don’t know who or what your sources are for your creative narrative. Likewise the armed drone that no one gave the order to fire. Additionally, “one of the men defending was “painting the target” with infrared. We paint targets all the time from the ground and air for attack from the ground, NOT necessarily from the air.

I think your conscience is sleeping on this one or you are abusing some drug.

Perhaps you should read the following link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226821/CIA-admits-role-US-consulate-attack-Benghazi.html

John, in a combat situation you do not paint a target just for the heck of it. Why? Because someone can figure out where you are and take you out. And yes, they were painting the target for an air attack. You really have no clue about that do you? Second, yes, there were two men firing and the tapes show that they were still alive 7 hours into it. The White House watched the firefight in real time - have you not been listening to their propaganda to cover everything up. They admitted to it.

Ruble’s Conscience –

In a combat situation we no longer “paint” targets with infrared – we did that when you were a baby – we use laser technology now. We also do not have men on the ground with paintbrushes rushing over to paint a man with an RPG or a Mortar, which is a really elegant solution. Furthermore, there never was an armed drone over the compound to paint anything. I do not know if you are getting all of your information from “My Pet Goat” but it is grossly inaccurate.

Have you recently started a “creative writing” course in HS?

It is apparent you know nothing about the military, combat or the CIA headquarters in Benghazi, masquerading as an Ambassador’s compound.

Keep trying though… it keeps me laughing.

I would once again refer you to the following link:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2226821/CIA-admits-role-US-consulate-attack-Benghazi.html

Are you folks referring to the attack as "9-11" in order to deflect attention form the real 9-11...the one in which thousands of American civilians were killed by terrorists on U.S. soil while GW Bush was reading a story book to school children?

WHAT DOES IT MATTER??!! -Hillary "Traitor/Liar" Clinton, 1/23/13

COME ON NOW JANE FONDA WILL VOUCH FOR HER!!!

"Sir Adolf Obama"?

You really are unhinged.

Yes, and I'm sober- imagine that.
Seriously, try to imagine being sober...

Blundering? Four words.

Bush...Cheney...Rice...Rumsfeld.

@Keith Schmitz Why is it that foreign governments traditionally view American Democratic Administrations as weak and inept? I think they are well aware of our political system.

Ask Bin Laden about the weak part.

The GOP's bogus shows of strength have gotten us in trouble internationally and in debt here at home.

@Keith Scmitz Democrats didn't kill bin Laden- the navy seals did.

As for Republicans' show of strength- there are corners of this world that only respect strength. Let up on this and it only encourages adventurism by foreign powers. Unfortunately US presence is required to maintain the peace.

Michael McClusky: Or didn't they?
Seems this Administration can't be trusted at all. For all we know, Bin Laden died of kidney failure and Obama wants to take credit for it.

@Michael...do you think Germany and Japan saw FDR and Truman as weak and inept?

It's W's fault.

Just think of the left and the MSM's reaction if W went around for a week lying about 9/11. Then months later saying what difference does it make?

This administration is a joke.

You just opened Pandora's box....
Let the 9/11 conspiracy lunatics begin.....

Ugh yeah we don't need that.

W never changed his story of events. So either he is a much better liar than Obama, or just a much better human being and public servant.

The MSM won't report any of this.

They're still too busy:

(1) Comparing Obama to every great speaker, for his inaugural speech was deemed the best ever,
(2) gawking at Michelle's $10000 dress and her trend-setting hair style, and...
(3) having orgasms over how well our awesome leader is at dancing.

Plus, we have a huge controversy brewing now.... over whether Beyonce was lip syncing or not.

What does it matter if she faked it!!.!?,?!! What does it really matter at this point?!?!.!,

Plus American idol started so the low informed voter wants to hear about that instead.

"But what does it really matter. What matters now is how we can prevent this in the future........"

This is essentially what Clinton said.

Apparently Hillary is good at faking it...She stayed with Bill, didn't she?

Good job Nancy you understand my context.

Little minds will magnify little acts and repeat over and over, because that's the extent of their knowledge.

Why are these left wing personal attacks still allowed here on Patch?

If's it an attack, or just some drunk a-hole stumbling down the road. What does it really matter at this point?

The Democrats didn't have to ask questions because they've been attending the briefings, like the one McCain blew off so he could have a press conference for the purpose of complaining that nobody ever tells him anything. Clinton didn't say anything that hadn't already been said, ad nauseum.

Nancy Hall- She was there to answer why the American people were lied to, and again she failed. That is what is ad nauseum. What was someone trying to coverup. At least when Nixon lied, noone was killed and he resigned. If it wasn't Hillary that gave the order, then Obama is to blame.

Is this the NBC spin Nancy? You dodged my question. Please answer.

Brian, just because you call something a lie doesn't make it a lie.

Can you summon up any comments you made about Iraq, in which 5,000 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis were killed, along with two million displaced?

Hillary voted in favor of the Iraq war.

@Steve...my answer to your question is that they didn't ask questions because they knew the answers. Obama, Clinton and Rice were not lying to the American people or to Congress. The Democrats had been doing their jobs and the Republicans were either asleep at the wheel or grandstanding.

We know that McCain blew off a briefing on Benghazi to hold a press conference in which he complained about not being given information about Benghazi. I'll bet the Democrats were there. That's why they didn't have to ask "tough" questions at this pointless exercise in gotcha politics.

Benghazi has all been a lie, from the moment Amb Rice went on TV. If I were a family member of one of the casualties, I'd be raising hell.

Oh my God, blame Reagan not Bush?
The difference is clear: Obama is too incompetent to learn from US history, Maybe because he never studied it being so preoccupied with the dreams of his father.

@Gary
Did Reagan blame it on a video? Did Reagan create commercials to run on Middle East TV apologizing for the a video? Did Reagan then give $1.5 Billion to the attackers (as Obama has done with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt)? Did Reagan then send the FBI to arrest a film producer in California and hold him for months on trumped up probation violation charges? Did Reagan have real time video of the suicide bomber driving through the Lebanon desert and deny American Troops the ability to go in and save those housed soldiers?

Mr. Tefft, you are attempting to defend Obama's weakness by claiming others in history have also been weak. That is pathetic. Anyone still defending Obama is either ignorant (low information voter) or wishes to re-write the constitution in a European socialist way.

@J.B. ...your post is a kind of bewildering amalgam of extreme right wing loony 'toon talking points that bear almost no resemblance to reality. It's hard to know where to begin, so I'll just pick out one glaring myth...that Obama gave 1.5 billion to "the attackers" whom you go on to identify as the "Muslim Brotherhood." First, there's no evidence that the Muslim Brotherhood attacked Benghazi. Given that there's an Al Qaeda incubator in nearby Derna, my money's on Al Qaeda or maybe one of their spin-off groups. Second, the idea that Obama gave the Muslim Brotherhood $1.5 billion is pure fantasy. It never happened. You're making it up.

Gary Tefft -

And then the most courageous president ever, said, "Let's get the hell out of here!"

And ALL the AMERICANS left...

@Nancy
You only responded to the question which the low information voter was able learn about on MSNBC. The rest of my questions would require the ability to analyze history from an intelligent perspective. $1.5 Billion went to Egypt when Obama side stepped congress, that is a fact.

The facts also are that the Egypt government is controlled by two extremely radical Islamic groups; the Muslim Brotherhood and Salafis. Now MSNBC will tell you that this doesn't mean they have control of the government because Morsi and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces is still in charge. However, who is the biggest backers of Morsi and sat down with our senators recently when they met Morsi....wait for it......wait for it.....the Muslim Brotherhood. Who then controls the puppet that is Morsi? Did you think US aid only went to buying food for the poor? Wait till they get our F-16 fighters Obama gave them.

As for the connection between Muslim Brotherhood and the attacks in Benghazi, you are right I don't know. That is simply because the US Government is covering up what happened. However, if you believe that these radical Islamic groups operate in individual bubbles with no contact, then you are living in a bubble.

The US has given Egypt over $1.5 billion annually for over 10 years.
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/politics/us-foreign-aid.htm

No Chromie, Reagan only invaded Granada to divert attention.

@Keith
And Obama created the false narrative of the war on women, whats your point? You haven't addressed anything a said; rather you slip in a non-relevant one liner expecting to sound intelligent to the low information voter.

@Walker
So therefore, it was dumb for congress to block the money from being given to Egypt because of the new radical government? That is why Obama side stepped congress and gave Egypt the money, because we had done it before.

Feminist Susan Faludi's 1991 book Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, argued that throughout the 1980s the media created a "backlash" against the feminist advances of the 1970s. Former Republican political consultant Tanya Melich's 1996 memoir, The Republican War Against Women: An Insider's Report from Behind the Lines, describes the incorporation of the Pro-life movement and opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment by Republicans as a divergence with feminist causes.

George W. Bush's administration met with resistance from feminists and women's rights activists throughout his Presidency. In 2004 The Feminist Press published Laura Flanders' collection of essays The W Effect: Bush's War On Women. Two years later, economist Barbara Finlay's critique of the Bush administration's treatment of women was published by Zed Books under the title George W. Bush and the War on Women: Turning Back the Clock on Progress.

@J.B. --- Actually, I was wondering why we send so much money to countries that hate us so much?

@Walker
So Obama sending women to the front line is not a war with women?

If you are discouraged by money going to countries that hate us, then Obama side stepping of the congress must make you question his other decisions, right?

@J.B.--- I question everything; including you. Have you ever served in the miltary?
"Discouraged"? You're good.

@Walker
I have not served. I am not questioning the role of women or ability; however, a male dominated administration has decided that women should be the first line of defense in the trenches. Between that and abortion, this administration brings new meaning to, Women and Children first.

"Discouraged", You did not answer!

"Discouraged"? Never came to mind, that would be your word.
Male dominated administration? What administration wasn't? It was the male dominated administration that decided women couldn't handle combat & never allowed it. No matter what their abilities were. You twist words well.

@Walker
I have not twisted my words as by your own admission they are truthful, you are just dodging that truth.

Women were not allowed combat because men believed they did not belong put in harms way. Now evidently you and the current administration believe that putting women in harms way is acceptable. Can a women fight? Sure, some better then I. Should we accept that our women need to be put in harms way? That type of thinking comes from a weak individual and a twisted society.

"Women were not allowed combat because men believed . . ." Exactly. Kinda like barefoot, pregnant & in the kitchen.

@Walker
You are right, respecting that women should not die in violent and gruesome war time activity is exactly like being barefoot and pregnant. Thanks for proving you are a low information voter.

Like you said, you never served. But yet you know who should. Who's the low information one? When all else fails resort to name calling & condescending remarks.

@J.B. Schmidt -- "Women were not allowed combat because men believed they did not belong put in harms way. Now evidently you and the current administration believe that putting women in harms way is acceptable."

The point is that military women have been put in harm's way for some time now, but because of the definition of 'combat' they have been denied the recognition and prospect for advancement that their service deserved.

@Walker
If you are only allowed to have an opinion on the things you have done, my guess is you have not been secretary of state, an ambassador or served any elected or appointed position in federal government making any and all comments on this thread by you irrelevant based on your won standards, correct?

@Randy
So you are arguing that women should be put in increased harms way because they are already there? They deserve an increased right to die? Maybe our society would be in a better place if men treated women as deserving better then dying on at the hands of another man.

Well you know what they say about opinions. ;-)~~~

@J.B. Schmidt -- Yes, that's precisely what I'm saying. How many women have been killed and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan? Women who volunteered. They should get the same recognition as the men.

Obviously, some women are not qualified for certain jobs, but then again, neither are some men. The distinction should not be made on the basis of gender.

@Randy
Good thing there are men like you to stand up for a women's honor and dignity.

I guess I am evil for thinking that women should be held above the ugliness of war.

@J.B. Schmidt -- "I guess I am evil for thinking that women should be held above the ugliness of war."

Whether they want it or not, eh? Tell that to Tammy Duckworth and all the women in Darfur, among others. And maybe they shouldn't have to worry their pretty little heads about voting either.

@Randy
Again you are right. Gender is not longer relevant in our fair society. Men are women, women are men, lambs sleeping with tigers and our society is better then ever.

@J.B. Schmidt -- As a great man once said, "girls will be boys and boys will be girls; it's a mixed-up, muddled-up shook up world." Except for Hilary.

Gender only makes a difference when you're peeing in the woods, and even then there's a way around that problem.

J.B. Schmidt –

I think you are equating the opening up of opportunities for women in the military as something negative; you conservative folks always want to limit opportunities for women, in all spheres. Women in the military and out have long fought for equality of opportunity in the military, including the opportunity to actually engage in combat; their paternalistic and testosterone driven male counterparts have long fought against this, wanting only to be fed, cared for and provided with sex whenever they so desired by their female comrades.

Those days are coming to an abrupt end… Israel, for one, has had females in combat for decades… any one of them could kick your corpulent derriere in a nanosecond…

@John Wilson
Again you are only able to expand your mind to the extent that MSNBC allows you.

Maybe if women were held as better then men and thus deserve better then the grunt work of military service and the ugliness of war; those doors would not exist. Maybe if liberals hadn't spent the last 50 years making men more feminine, females wouldn't feel the need to be more masculine in order to fill that void.

@J.B. Schmidt -- Sorry if I've forgotten, but what branch of the military did you volunteer for again?

@Randy
Already been answered and addressed in this thread.

If service decided ones ability to comment on anything military, then please provide your medical records as being female, the last record of election to Wisconsin governmental office or which president of the US you were. If none of those you are able to provide then you can't comment on any topics related to those areas.

@J. B. Schmidt -- I merely asked if you'd done the manly thing and volunteered to serve in combat so that women would not 'have' to. Since you haven't done so, it takes a bit of chutzpah to criticize 'liberals' for why women feel the need to serve their country in whatever capacity they choose to.

@Randy
My baby boomer parents bought into the feminization routine. In retrospect not joining was a poor decision on part. It is what it is. Now I can ensure future generations don't fail to see the disastrous consequences of progressive thought.

@J.B. Schmidt -- I am in awe of your ability to say that with a straight face.

@Randy
As I am sure John Wilson will agree, I am awe-inspiring.

Thanks for ruining a Ray Davies classic, Randy. Geez.

@Bob McBride -- I wasn't sure Schmidt understood the reference. Maybe his Boomer parents could explain it to him.

J. B. Schmidt -

All male humans carry female DNA within their bodies; all female humans carry male DNA within their bodies. We are all a combination of female and male DNA. [Jesus would not tell you that; however, thanks to real science we can actually prove that empirically… disturbing, huh?]

FYI: Life is change.

I know that conservatives cannot tolerate change, both at the personal and societal level; they want everything to remain as it is. That is why they are always attempting to go back to the 18th century. [Storks deliver babies.]

I'm truly sorry that you feel overly feminized in the society in which you live; perhaps, if you would stop shaving your legs, wearing pantyhose and short dresses, you might just feel a bit more masculine...

Dr. Wilson:

How are you defining DNA to be either 'male' or 'female' (or both)?

CowDung -

The presence of both X and Y-chromosomes for a start; that is not in the bible...

A chromosome is made up of a single strand of DNA--how can DNA contain an X and a Y chromosome when it is DNA that makes up the chromosome itself?

@Dr. Wilson ( I like that Cow)
So you are saying that gender doesn't truly exist? It is simply an expression of one gene over another. Like brown or blue eyes?

I think Dr. Wilson needs to stop worrying about what is in the Bible or not and instead spend some time with a biology book...

@JB...The aid to Egypt is an annual package that we've been sending them since 1979 regardless of the shifts in Egypt's internal politics. Sending aid to Egypt and sending aid to a particular political party are two different things. The Muslim Brotherhood is a political party and it does not rule Egypt any more than the Democrats rule the U.S..

What version did you watch, NBC news?
I saw it live, and Hillary not only tried the PMS-ing angry woman tactic, but she also completely ignored any direct questions.

She schooled him. He was so embarrassed he had to wait until he got to cry on Charlie's shoulders where he could get sympathy.

She schooled him. He was so embarrassed he had to wait until he got to cry on Charlie's shoulders where he could get sympathy.

Apparently Craig you don't recognize the good bitch slapping (Mo)Ron got from Hlllary.

Keif: I saw a bitch...but no slapping.
I saw a diversion tactic used to avoid telling the truth without lying about it.
She never answer the question, but you are okay with that?
Forget partisanship for two minutes and ask yourself if it is acceptable to ignore the cause of four deaths. If it were W's administration, you would be screaming from the rooftops.

Hillary has spent her entire adult life lying to protect the men in her life. In combination with her recent neurological issues, she seemed nearly unhinged with this response. Four Americans dead due to policy decisions which may have been made by her and she comes up with 'what difference does it make'? Our political leadership is totally corrupt.

Ron Johnson was the only normal American in the room. Everyone else - except Rand Paul - was playing the usual Washington game and ignoring the 4 deaths and those to come because we are lying to ourselves about the incident.

J. B. Schmidt -

He was really asking for Jesus to come and protect him...

@John Wilson
Congratulation you were able to include your Christian bashing in this thread. You are obviously an opened minded liberal tolerant of people.

Christianity gets bashed by people posing as Christians.

@Keith
Another irrelevant comment with no substance. You are on roll in this thread.

J. B. Schmidt -

Congrats, ONE post without the infamous "low information voter" being repeated ad nauseam!

I am very tolerant of people, not so much for fantasy creations, psychotic ideation, superstitions, asinine ideologies and ritualistic behaviors.

@Bren
I think it was when the Ambassador who requested more security. So when we denied the experts their request, because they understood the world's hotspots, who do we blame for the failures. If it were me I would blame the two people with the least experience in the world's hotspots and the two with the most direct control of listening to the experts in the world's hotspots; Obama and Hilary.

Which is why so much went wrong, because obviously, Hillary is no "expert."

In the interest of national security there are details that aren't shared with the general public. Your conjecture is unproductive.

@Bren
As the staunch independent you are, you would not be making that statement if W were president.

How is understanding whether our men were left to die, unproductive?

Lol. Brent's moderate claim is blown to pieces once again.

J. B. Schmidt -

"How is understanding whether our men were left to die, unproductive?'

1) Even IF you could understand it, you cannot bring them back

2) You cannot change what happened

3) The ARP reported in December 18 that they did not hold Hillary culpable or negligent in the entire matter. They did put forth 29 separate recommendations to make sure something comparable to Benghazi would be less likely in the future; Hillary is in the process of implementing all 29 recommendations… these changes will be followed up when Kerry becomes the new Secretary of State

4) There is nothing of any significance that you can do, at this point, it is all over

5) Whatever happened remains classified and as much as you feel you know now is all you are ever going to get; the ARP also did a "classified report" and that will never be released to the public

Hence, any ruminations you may engage in are futile, a waste of effort and unproductive.

Go try and do something productive... polish your head...

@John Wilson
Lets pretend your not the normal low info voter.

1) When you make the 'what does it matter now' argument, as you did in 3 repetitive points, couldn't the NRA make the same 'what does it matter now' about the killings at Sandy Hook? My guess is your calling for complete restructuring of the constitution because of those dead children even if you have no clue as to that real motive.

2) What exactly would be classified? Here in this CBS news article: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57536524/before-death-amb-stevens-warned-of-violent-libya-landscape/ we see that for months before the attack and even on the day of the attack Ambassador Stevens was concerned with his security and felt it was lacking. Considering he was right, who is at fault for ignoring his requests and allowing him to die. As Bret pointed out this should have been left to the experts. Who was more the expert Ambassador Stevens living in Libya or Hilary Clinton in her cozy state side bed in Bedford Hills, NY?

3) The ARP was initiated by Hilary. The people on the ARP were selected by Hilary. In the ARP it states, "Benghazi functioned collegially at the working-level but were constrained by a lack of transparency, responsiveness, and leadership at the senior levels" completely supporting the GOP claims about this administration. Odd how these board members never scrutinize their boss in the report in reference to 'senior levels'?

You are as low info as they come.

J. B. Schmidt – (P-1)

Let us pretend that you possess an iota of logic and are not conflating apples and oranges.

Let us further pretend that you know the topic here is: Hillary Clinton Spars with Wisconsin Sen. Ron Johnson Over Benghazi. That said, I will play your game for a moment only...

I think I may have mistakenly attached the acronym ARP to the “Accountability Review Board” in a prior post… Oops.

1) You may attempt to make the NRA’s cause [Diversion tactic] – to frighten American’s into believing that everyone is out to get them so they had better buy guns – thus making the gun manufactures more money and the NRA more profitable and politically powerful an equivalent issue here, but that completely misses the point.

“My guess is your calling for complete restructuring of the constitution because of those dead children even if you have no clue as to that real motive.”

You know, that NO ONE is calling for the “complete restructuring of the constitution.” There are 27 Amendments to the Constitution; you and your paranoid ilk are only concerned with the 2nd. [Just to warm that void space, where your brain should be, the SC, as far back as1939, ruled it was Constitutional to ban machine guns & sawed off shotguns.] Even the mighty Scalia in the Heller decision states that there can be restrictions on crosses, I mean guns.

Please learn something about the State Department, number of departments, number of people involved and their mission.

J. B. Schmidt – (P-2)

2) The ARB issued (2) reports – while you were feeding your dinosaur – (1) public and (1) classified. IF you have to ask “what exactly would be classified?” that, alone, disqualifies you from even engaging in a peripheral discussion of security issues relating to embassies in foreign countries and security in general. When we have intelligence assets operating in foreign countries – which we always do – we rarely give the public their names and addresses, a list of their tools, their contacts, mission, methods and overall resources and capabilities.

3) Hillary asked for an ARB and once they reported immediately began implementation of their 29 recommendations. “The people on the ARB were selected by Hilary.” I would ask you to support that scurrilous accusation with some facts! Where are your sources? Furthermore, Hillary was not questioned by the ARB because she is not a “security expert” and could not possibly contribute any information to the “security issues” at Benghazi; she has (2) different departments under her, whose primary focus is embassy security. These “security experts” were interview extensively.

@John Wilson
When you open your comment by repeating my opening line you accept that I have bettered you.

I fairly addressed everything you put forth. Your lengthy and wandering retort was a maze of distractions irrelevant points.

1)If the dead in Benghazi are insignificant because it is “all over” or because we “cannot bring them back”; then the same can be said for the people in Aurora and Sandy Hook thus ending all liberal attacks to the second amendment; which have received much blog space on Patch.

2) You are assuming that in the classified version there is some information that allowed the State Department to accept that American interests were better served by not sending additional protection to the Ambassador or they felt his life was not as important as American interests. Please provide anything that leads you believe this. Otherwise explain why we ignored those requests (as listed in my link) and explain why everyone in the State Department that saw them and did nothing has not been fired or brought before the Senate committee for an explanation. Instead you are accepting Hilary’s statement that she saw nothing, knows nothing and yet everything is fine.

3) The first 2 paragraphs of the unclassified ARB state that Hilary convened the Board and selected its members.

J.B. Schmidt –

I thought this blog existed as a forum for the exchange of opinions and ideas; I did not realize that YOU were playing the “My daddy can beat up your daddy” game.

I am making only ONE assertion, no assumptions, regarding the “classified” version of the ARB, and that is that it contains sensitive information that the government does not feel comfortable with sharing with the general population. The innocuous link you provided contains no meaningful information, other than what is already known publicly. Furthermore, I served for 6-years in the Marines, I know much more about “classified information”, and “security” along with covert ops than you ever will. Benghazi, as are your convoluted and ever increasing diversions [destroying the Constitution, NRA, gun control, your husband’s nickers, etc. are over.]

The only contribution you bring to the discussion is accusations, guesses and opinions… when asked for credible documentation you are unable to provide any.

Your assertion: “My guess is your calling for complete restructuring of the constitution because of those dead children even if you have no clue as to that real motive.”

PROOF?

Your assertion: “The people on the ARP were selected by Hilary.

[Hillary chose 4-board members!]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/18/us/19benghazi-report.html

J.B., the same would be said under any administration. Do you have any idea of the vastness of the network which functions regardless of who is in office? If a request for additional security is turned down, that is resonant. That suggests a situation where escalation could be incendiary.

The issue of the Bush administration was amateurs interfering in the work of professionals. When Joseph Wilson wrote in the NYT that he had found no evidence to support the Bush administration's assertions that Saddam Hussein had try to buy "yellow cake" (uranium ore) from Niger when he visited that country in 2002 to investigate the issue at the request of the CIA, his wife, a covert CIA operative was "outed" by senior Bush officials, supposedly in retaliation.

It was known then, as now, that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. Sanctions in that country, which had been blown back into the Iron Age by the Gulf War, were working. The focus should have been on bin Laden, which we knew wouldn't happen with a member of the Bush family in office. That administration ignored the urgent counsel offered by professional diplomats abroad and at home.

I appreciate you would like to blame Obama and Hillary, but consider the number of casualties from the Iraq invasion; the thousands of U.S. soldiers killed or injured and possibly maimed; civilian casualties at 100,000+. Seems clear which administration was on watch during the highest casualties. Leave.It.To.The.Experts.

@Bren
Your right, they said they told us everything we need to know.

@Dr. Wilson
There were only 5 members on the board. In most cases that is called a stacked deck.

Your desire to defend the administrations actions means you are dismissing the denied requests for extra security because they knew better and it was not the Secretary of State or President that denied these requests. That the classified document "contains sensitive information that the government does not feel comfortable with sharing with the general population." Thus your are assuming the classified information placed something hire in priority for national security then the life of an Ambassador. However, that higher priority was never addressed with the President of Secretary of State. With your experience (thank you for your service no sarcasm intended) what would be more important than the life of an ambassador yet not important enough to address the Secretary of State or President.

J. B. Schmidt -

The present and future security of the United State of America, something all presidents swear to uphold as their number ONE directive; additionally, the protection of many secret intelligence assets involved in our MISSION in Benghazi...

Had you ever served, particularily in combat – no disrespect intended – you might fully understand at a very deep level, that there are some things and causes vastly more important than your life. I am sure Ambassador Stevens was very well aware of that.

Unfortunately, there is a huge context issue here, military, security and governmental agencies involved in this tragedy do see the huge contextual framework; civilians only see 4 honorable dead people.

@John Wilson
That is the best answer I have seen presented for the defense of the current Administration. While I am concerned with the events and believe there are things classified that are more CYA rather than national security; I accept that response and will not challenge it.

Have a good evening. It has been fun sparing today.

Faux news a "real news channel"? WOW. That's like saying breitbart is credible. The Onion is more credible than either.

Real news channel? Stop it. You're making Goebbels jealous.

There were several others that "took it to her head on" he was the only one that got spanked so badly he went crying to Charlie.

"(C)rying to Charlie."

Gut buster!

Nancy Hall- Hillary lied and people died...Or was it Obama? Hmmm...

Nancy Hall –

I’m inclined to agree with you; the GOP would, however, be crying and whining about Hillary not testifying before their crude, vociferous, largely unintelligible committee until 2021, when Hillary enters her 2nd term as President if she had not put in an appearance.

I thought it was absolutely beautiful as she sliced and diced one Republican buffoon after another…

Her smack down of the simpleton, Johnson, who wanted her to get on a rotary phone and just call Benghazi, while they were under attack, to get some “real time” information was awesome!

That’s Wisconsin’s Republican senator… now you know why we are 42nd in the nation in job creation…

Comparing percentages about job creation proves you lie about, well everything.

Steve, you mean surveys from socialist publications like Forbes?

Keith, you fail again at substance

http://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm

Recent reports put WI's UI closer to 6%

This is a REAL comparison, use your head

@ Brian Dey....nobody lied. The fact is that they didn't know precisely what had happened in the first few days and officials like Susan Rice gave whatever information they had at the time. It's a fact that the film sparked protests in Egypt. It's a reasonable assumption that it played a role in Benghazi. However, Susan Rice did not attribute the attack in Benghazi entirely to the film. She said that the incident in Benghazi was "almost a copycat" of what happened in Cairo, but she added "what we think then transpired in Benghazi is that opportunistic extremist elements came to the consulate as this was unfolding.”

The "opportunistic extremist elements" were almost certainly affiliated with Al Qaeda, but that had not been established in the first few days after the attack. To reiterate in English that even you could understand...Rice said that they thought there had been a protest in Benghazi like the one in Cairo and that the terrorists had taken advantage of the situation to attack the consulate. That is not a lie.

John Wilson- What does that have to do with this. Susan Rice lied and I'm pretty sure that even you know that. Kindly remove you head from your backside and breathe some real air.

Brian Dey -

Just pointing out - probably too subtle for your cave man mind - that ALL politicians LIE...

Most Americans know that, understand that, and have even come to grips with that.

I'm sorry if I made you actually have a thought... how lonely that one isolated thought must be...

My John Wilson, you are the gifted one, or should I say special... Next time you have a thought, let it go.

Lol Hillary thought there were WMD but now she's telling the truth and needs to be defended. You guys are funny when your celebrities are backed into a wall.

John Wilson: Here's an idea, try reading beyond the Daily Kos. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/10/benghazi-timeline/

There is the timeline of what was said and not said.

And Wilson, why don't you ask Hillary's husband Bill about the WMD's. It was his intelligence (or lack thereof) that Congress and Bush relied on. Again, Clintons lie, people die.

I'm just glad she is determined to leave.

In the debates Obama repeatedly told us and Romney that Al Queda was decimated. Remember?
The attacks were a result of the Muslim Brotherhood, another name for terrorists like Al Queda.
Obama didn't want to admit he lied, and now he doesn't want to admit he knew.

Eric -

So, what is your point?

Congress cut 300B from the State Departments Budget...

Ambassador Rice gave the "talking points" that she was given. The CIA gave the "talking points" that they were given. Everyone, with the exception of Obama & Hillary lied... and so, now, you want to go after the two people who told you it was a terrorists attack on September 12, 2012?

FYI: Our government lies to us all the time, for many different reasons, and almost ALL Americans know that; get in the real world!

Finally, there are 29 new recommendations from the ARB currently being implemented so we do not have a repeat of this... what do you want?

but but but the sky was cloudy that day and the mail was late.

Obama spends $1 trillion + per year more than we take in. And you voted for him again. Stop whining and making NBC excuses for a failure.

And excuse my amphibology.

LOL

The numbskull really gave a boost to her campaign didn't he?

Keith, you illustrate our root problem, you seem to be greatly inclined to have a partisan fight, but much less motivated to get to the truth all the time so that problems can be solved. Iraq was wrong, Libya was wrong, and while we fiddle in partisanship, "Rome is burning". Odd you find that satisfying.

Keith- If the intelligence was wrong for Hillary, and it was wrong for Iraq, then you must either blame Hillary for this as you blamed Bush for Iraq, or blame neither. Anything else is hypocritical.

"(Y)ou seem to be greatly inclined to have a partisan fight." Don't make we laugh. Bet you aren't partisan at all are you Eric.

Bush purposely sent us off to a war. We spent $1T on it and tens of thousands of lives were lost. There is a massive difference in scale, but most of you on the right ain't too good at cipherin'.

When was there ever hell for Bush to pay for that, although if you believe in hell this is quite likely where Bush will end up.

Consequently, this makes the GOP's fishing expedition a screaming farce. It would be one thing to imagine that the Republicans want these hearings to prevent this happening in the future, but only a fool would think they did.

Very sorry about the four lives lost and so was Hillary because the ambassador was her friend. But because of Iraq, the GOP has no moral standing.

Keif, you idiot. Best to shuffle down to Walgreens for your plastic bottle of vodka, you seem more angry than ever. Your ever expanding forehead is a sign of your anger.

Hillary Clinton: No regret on Iraq vote
http://articles.cnn.com/2004-04-21/politics/iraq.hillary_1_weapons-inspection-process-iraq-vote-saddam-hussein?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS

Hillary Clinton Iraq War Vote Speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

Now shuffle off to Walgreens and get your drink on Keif.

So what. A lot of people changed their minds on Iraq.

Doesn't change the fact they were lied to and that the Bush administration is comprised of war criminals.

Have a drink on me pal.

Actually Keith, I try not to be partisan. When I worked in the federal government I thought I'd do my job better if I didn't pick a political party. Your rude tone does you no honor and is counter-productive to convincing others of your argument. If past history is significant to you in the context of the Libyan episode, then in addition to Iraq, broaden the context to include Vietnam and Korea, among others. The Obama White House messed up the Libyan situatuion last year, we lost a good man originally from Wisconsin, and now no one will fess up because their political viabilities are more important than fixing the problems. Since I make you laugh, I bid you adieu since constructive discussion does not seem to be your thing.

@Eric...what is it that you think someone should "fess up" to? You sound like you think Clinton planned the attack.

Without a doubt. The 3+ months before testifying simply allowed her to rehearse her lines and fake acting along with drying out. She was NEVER ill or injured.
They're from Chicago-Wake up America!

Monica Lawinsky COULD TAKE OVER FOR HER SHE DID BEFORE

Monica Lewinsky is not qualified to take over for Hillary. She has a history of blowing it, she would leak classified information, and would make things too messy.

Her so-called political career ended yesterday. An abject liar and failure.

Au contraire. Senator (Mo)Ron gave it an enormous booster. She sent those pygmies -- include Senator Rand Paul -- through the wood chipper.

Turkey?

TELLING HER AND THE WORLD IT'S TIME FOR HILLERY TO CHANGE INTO A CLEANER DIAPER !

Bob McBride -

Hillary does not “suffer fools” and neither do I.

Johnson gave Hillary just the opportunity she was looking for, to deliver an impassioned smack down of one of the Republican’s most simple-minded and arrogant buffoons, and she did it masterfully…

You probably are correct, we will be hearing much of this for a long time to come.

John, blow the cloud of pot smoke out of your face and watch that thing again. Watch it a couple times, because it needs to penetrate the cloudiness in your noggin as well. I'll guarantee that little snippet has already been edited into some effective attack ads ready to hit the airwaves in 2016.

Johnson got exactly what he was going for. You could see that if you weren't fixated on her and simultaneously elbow deep in a Family Size bag of Doritos while pawing at your fly with your other meathook.

Bob McBride -

It really does not matter if Hillary's smack down of the senate's greatest buffoon is edited for campaign snippets in 2016; IF Hillary decides to run, she wins... it really is just that easy... and, I prefer Cheetos.

[Again, Wednesdays and the weekends are my only pot smoking agenda]

WISHFUL THINKING and dysfunctional perception seems to be a chronic disease with conservatives.

You too, have garnered enough of my attention for today...

John, like most abusers, you probably minimize your usage. I think your posting speaks for itself in that regard. Only clouded thinking would view that clip of her losing her composure as a "smack down".

Hillary's got a reputation as a hot head and Johnson brought that out yesterday. I suppose you could debate the intentional nature of it, but he was smart enough to let her run with that rather than jump in a ruin the perfect gift. If she can't even handle Ron Johnson without losing her cool, what's she gonna do as POTUS when she's faced with a real challenge - fake another concussion?

Now THAT was a "SMACKDOWN" !

Wow Bob, what an imagination you have. To claim Johnson has any sort of strategy beyond spewing out the imbecilic talking points defies reality.

Hillary has a reputation for being a "hot head." Johnson's reputation is along the lines of having nothing in his head.

BTW John. Keep at it. You must be doing a great job at getting under their skin because now they are getting personal.

You two guys should get together and blow a doob or split a bottle of Night Train or something. You deserve it for all the effort you put in around here today trying to keep the illusion of this being a big Hillary win alive. Good work guys!

Bob, there is no there, there.

The only way Johnson got under Hillary skin was by being an exasperating numbskull.

The guy lacks the guts or mental agility to go out and do town halls. At least you've got to give F. Jim that much. If you think you see something more than that, kindly pass the joint. It's been a long, long time.

He makes Wisconsin look like idiots for sending him to Washington and he is so clueless that he gladly goes on TV to prove it.

Keep banging away at it Keith. The trouble is there's a video attached to this article and you can easily see Hillary checking herself and Johnson laying back and letting her try to work her way out of it. It's classic material Keith and you'll be seeing it until steam comes pouring out your ears come 2016. Enjoy it. I did.

Oh, and John's the proud pot enthusiast. Wednesdays and weekends only. Gets it for free and it's impossible for him to get busted because he knows people. Just ask him, or you can scroll back through a month's worth of his nonsense and find it yourself. So if you're thinking of taking a trip down memory lane for reals, he's the man.

Bob, I know you are smarter than this. Most of the sentient world perceives Johnson as lacking any intellectual capacity and as strictly a talking points machine.

And then he gets school by John Kerry today.

Yeah I'm enjoying it because I know you'll be steaming like a calliope when Hillary raises her right on the third Monday of January of 2017 to take the oath, thanks in part to the booster Senator I Married My Way to Third Base gave her.

Keith, are you suggesting she faked it to make Johnson look like an a-hole? She's there taking one for the team and decides "Hey I'll make this douf look silly"? C'mon THAT doesn't pass the smell test.

Johnson got her goat. Whether you think he did it intentionally or stumbled into it and was too shellshocked to reply, the point is she got rattled and lost her cool and that footage is going to do her more harm than it is Johnson.

You know damn well what can and will be done with that footage. You're not that clueless. And you know she still produces a visceral response in people on both sides of the political fence. The moment was hers to lose - and she lost it. In more ways than one.

Faked what? This is a case where Hillary didn't suffer a fool gladly and it would have been political malpractice if she didn't put him in his place. The voters in Wisconsin will pick up where she left off in 2016, rewarding her and punishing Johnson by sending him back to his in-law's factory where he belongs.

Except for the far right, everyone saw what I saw. I believe Soledad Obrien will polish him off. But that doesn't stop him from going on the TeeVee and making us look like fools.

Keith,

The point will be made, repeatedly, that if she can't handle Johnson (some folks believe she's got other preferences to begin with, but I digress...), how's she going to handle the pressures of the office of POTUS. What you see as "not suffering fools" can easily and just as correctly be portrayed as having a short fuse. She IS known for that, whether you wish to acknowledge it or not.

This footage will be dredged up and used repeatedly. It'll be diced and sliced and it'll hit home. The circumstances behind it will be long forgotten by the time it hits the tube every hour on the hour. You know this. If you're still trying to to rationalize this as a positive for her, you're in denial.

That characterization exists only on the right Bob. Most of the country views Hillary as one of the most competent Secretaries of State in history, and consequently, Johnson came off as a clueless wienie that she had for lunch.

But thanks for a guided tour of your perceptive processes.

Bob:

The "slicing and dicing" has already begun...........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B7dZReimPI

Keith, you had Walker gone as well. You're about as close to that as one could be and you got that wrong. I'm not buying your take on what the country thinks. MSNBC is not "most of the country" anymore than Fox is.

We've got 3 years before the campaigns for the respective party candidates begin in earnest. The only thing to come out of this particular moment in time is some footage that will be used against her if she ends up being the candidate. Remember, she was a shoe-in last time around until the party decided they'd have a better shot at it with Obama and the portion of the population that could be guaranteed to vote for him regardless of what he said or did. If an electable Latino/Latina comes along between now and then (odds of that, very good, btw), she could very well get shoved aside again. She's not as universally loved as you've allowed yourself to believe.

Yes she is Bob. Can't help it you watch FOX. Maybe that's where you got the idea she did poorly against Senator Embarrassment. I bet I know what happened. FOX did one of those edit jobs they are so well known for where she came out saying "I lied."

See in Rubeville where everyone hates the Clinton with an irrational passion, Hillary was a terrible witness and Ron Johnson was bright, agile and penetrating.

In the real world, Hillary is lauded for improving foreign relations and creating a better business climate for our economy (per that socialist rag Businessweek). Ronnie Johnson is recognized for the putz talking points machine that he is and people realize that his only job is to protect the Bemis family fortune he married into, not represent the people of Wisconsin. Because is he represents what we are, then we are blithering idiots.

Only mere children worship Ayn Rand.

Keith, I don't watch Fox. You do watch MSNBC. My point is that neither of them are representative of "most of the country". So your suggestion that "most of the country" thinks she's done a great job as Secretary of State and can't wait to put her in office of POTUS, based on the viewpoint you take away from MSNBC and other lefty media outlets and contacts you have is speculative at best. It's the same thinking that led you to firmly believe Walker was done. You were wrong about that, you're wrong about this being some sort of big victory for Hillary. Whatever her supposed popularity, she's equally as subject to a campaign beat down as were other popular candidates that have gone before her and lost. Unlike Obama, she's got a history to work with and this becomes part of it - and not a positive part.

The truth is, with time, the circumstances surrounding this one little portion of her appearance will be forgotten. What will be left behind is a this sound/video bite that show's her losing her composure in response to some persistent questioning by Johnson - a lightweight bit player. Taken out of context, it doesn't make her look good. When 2016 comes around, if she's chosen as the candidate (again, barring some alternative that's less divisive or more able to pull in a particular demographic than she is), it won't be her side using it. It'll be that of her opponent.

Get out of the moment, look at the big picture. You know I'm right, even if you won't admit it.

What you don't get Bob is most of the country knows that this hearing is a circus, put on by the same clowns that cheered on Bush when he and his handlers lied to get us in Iraq. How in the world you can see that as a plus for the GOP bends belief.

Sure in this 24-hour-cycle cable-driven news environment the appearance itself will be forgotten, but this hearing adds to Hillary's cred that she's is competent and does not take crap. See, it plays better when a woman slaps back than a man.

And of course a lot can happen between now and 2016, as did to her in 2008. But thanks to 2008, she is not only smarter but having had a successful run as Secretary of State, she's in better shape. Having losers like Rand Paul (Turkey? Turkey?) in on this only helped.

But I'm not going to be smug or foolish to think you know I am right. All that matters to me is that I know I'm right -- and a lot of other people know they are right.

I'm borrowing this but it is useful here.

Clinton looked like the next President of the United States.

Johnson looked like an AM Radio Talk Radio jock.

That's your problem right there, Keith. You're borrowing something from a partisan source you agree with. You can't escape that world. You can't step out of it and look at the big picture and the long game.

There is one of two things going on here. Either you're bluffing because that's the party line at this point in time or you honestly don't have as firm a grasp on politics as you seem to think you do.

Let me draw an analogy for you. If my third string defensive tackle takes down your starting quarterback and sustains a career ending injury in the process of dinging up your QB, which team is taking the biggest hit. Was it a win for you because my third stringer is out of the game for life? This was in no way a win for Hillary and I'll guarantee that if she thought she could erase her loss of composure at that point, to that guy, from history, she would.

Harken back to the last election. You guys rode Romney's dog and his underwear for all they were worth and that was utter nonsense. If you honestly think this is going to somehow magically fade away into the mist, you're in deep, deep denial. You can't wish it away or spin it away. It's already been edited and tucked away in the arsenal for safe keeping.

Liberal definition of "smack down" - I can shout louder, look angrier and use more profane words than you can all the while never answering the question so I win the argument.

Yep, smoke and mirrors are good things.

Ruble's Conscience -

REAL LIBERAL definition of a "smack down", when you surprise an adversary with logic, slap them back and forth with it acrossed their thoroughly confused face and leave them speechless, as they hopelessly search for their smoke and mirrors to save them.

Speaking of smoke and mirrors:
When was the last time you burnt one Johnny? Has it been more than 24 hours yet?
Your judgment is impaired.

John,

She never answered a question. Why???? It remains to be seen.

She looked like a baffoon. Anybody conservative that would have given that crap of a reply would have been stoned by the liberal media. To think otherwise is ridiculous.

Funny Brian. The preps behind the invasion of Iraq have never been dragged before Congress. Hillary ate these hot dogs...with relish.

I would have to agree with you. She would be better than the pos sob we have now.

Lee- We don't need politicians. We need leaders and both parties are severly lacking in that department.

@Brian Dey- I choose the word politician on purpose. I did not say leader. I agree with you, both parties lack leaders. But, do true leaders really become politicians? (And please do not say Ronald Reagan. Because then I have to bring up the Contra fiasco) Therefore, one can only hope to elect the most skilled and able politician, of which I think Hillary is.

Wow. The greatest hits of the tin foil hat wearers.

Bongo! I have hit the nerve. Classless little self-loathing creeps like you go there when they've run out of anything to say.

The term "ripped off" implies money was stolen, which it wasn't. Keep it up creep and I'll find you and sue your sorry little ass.

Just slither back to your south side bar and shut up.

Young Conservative, I flagged your comment. I tire of these personal attacks against Keith Schmitz. Focus on the discussion at hand.

Rip off-
a. to steal or pilfer.
b. to rob or steal from.
c. to swindle, cheat, or exploit.
I don't think you could sue for being asked a question.

Johnny Blade, the worn-out Foster thing is a replay of Jerry Falwell's bullshit. Speaking of Falwell, He and Larry Flint deserved one another.

No numbskull who hides behind a screen name. Being asked a question and being accused of something are two different things, or are you too stupid to get that?

Yeah, I could sue for that. Now crawl back in your hole.

Bren:

Do you ever tire of the personal attacks lodged by Keith Schmitz? If he's going to dish it out, he should expect to get some back...

Thank you Keith, I stand corrected.
You could sue for being asked a question, just as Shorewood could sue you for ripping off the tax payers. Heck, If you were in Dane County you may even win one or both suits, but I doubt it. No, I'm not too stupid to get that.
As to hiding behind a screen name, nice job Straw Man! Go to Oz and get a brain. My screen name is my real name, as I assume yours is, but unlike you I am not here to promote myself or a nazi PAC. My screen name is intended to be used as exactly what it is, a screen name, so sue me. I guess if you don't like it you do have options, may I suggest one? Go away.

No Greg. A first name is still, just a first name. Essentially, you are gutless and your out of control attacks only make you look like a jackass to most of the readers.

No courage of your convictions, whatever the hell they are.

Take a look in the mirror before you chide someone for their out of control attacks, Keith.

Someone needs a hug.

Keith, do I have to explain the difference between a screen name and a real name? I know you're old and not too bright, but it's not that difficult to understand.
Since many of the people here use screen names, I would think that it is you that is the jackass and you are the coward for threatening legal action for comments on a blog. This thread proves who is on the attack, so suggestion 2 is go away.

Veteran here Keif, I am pretty sure the last bowel movement I took has more patriotism than you have had in your entire pathetic life. Has your buzz worn off from the Walgreens vodka?

Yeah, you should know. Your head has been up there enough.

You bring out the best in people, don't you, so-called vet.

I believe what's happening here is that those of little experience/knowledge in such matters perceive this to be some sort of opportunity to cause embarrassment for the president. For those who do, this is another example of watching the wheels uselessly spin. Again.

And why not. They're incapable of real policy.

If you kids can't play nice, then don't play at all! LOL

Yo Keith, since you started the name calling, you're a GD Pussy! Alpha Mike Foxtrot

You don't track very well do you Mike. Probably explains your voting.

You shouldn't talk about Keith that way...

I sue you! I sue you! You very bad man. I sue you!

Greg, what do you want to be when you grow up?

A Progressive Political Acitivist. A big fan of a capitalistic system that works for all.
Or a Rocket Surgeon.

And also disregard the 5th grade grammar from one Mr. Robert Heule.

Take another sip of your juice box you , and thank you for pointing out the evil of the Muslim Brotherhood. None of the circumstances you cite so eagerly involved the death of a US Ambassador and none of the circumstances were denied military security. Now get back to watching MSNBC with your man-love for Special Ed Schultz.

They never lied and said that these incidents were becasue of a video either.

Hey mental disease. Your argument split so many hairs you could repopulate Rick Scott's head.

Furthermore, what has Hillary Clinton or Ron Johnson truly done in terms of benefitting anyone commenting here? Is either individual truly worth making such hateful, verbal attacks against one another? I don't get it.

As a infamous liar once said “What difference does it make?”

@patchreader Well said!

Given the nature of the article, what kind of dialogue would you expect in the comments section?

This is Patch - not a think tank by a long margin. If you want more heady discussions, they're out there. Some are a bit more exclusive and require permission to post, require that posts be of a significantly intelligent nature, on topic at all times, respectful of the author and other posters and tend to be heavily moderated.

Wow Bob, and you had nothing to do with this.

Keith, I really didn't think it was necessary to point out the obvious.

The point is nobody goes to Chuck E. Cheese and complains about the lack of fine Italian cuisine. Sometimes you just want to play Whack a Mole. And you're my favorite mole.

HAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAA, dead Americans and terrorism.

Billary lies about it and you think it's funny? Lefties have no class and less standards.

Greg –

I think the most asinine, and outrageously juvenile comment on the Patch, is YOU commenting on “class” and “standards…”

And this, following your very incisive and extremely illuminating: “HAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAA”

Please do not ever fear that anyone will ever take your comments seriously...

John, Like everyone else, I could give a crap what you think. I care even less now that you have condoned making a joke out of terrorism and dead Americans, I bet you wipe you ass with the American flag too.

Greg -

You classy, Christian, Neocon, you...

Too many or our politicians want nothing more than to remain undisturbed and unaccountable as they continue to nurse from the government teat. A teat filled with perks, money, power, etc. I’m sure that not a single one of them did anything productive during the entire week-long inaugural soiree. And if the system can keep the public preoccupied with partisan confrontation with one another, than the “Bidens,” “Boehners,” “Pelosis” and other political “lifers” of the system will remain happy. It’s all nothing more than a ruse to support an oligarchy.

It is unfortunate that I have to seek out foreign publications, such as the Economist, in an effort to achieve truly objective information. By doing so, I unwillingly end up depriving myself of local news and commentary. And as far as local commentary goes, I’m not ready to write it off as unintelligent. Instead, I will consider the mud-slinging and divisiveness of such commentary as nothing more than a side effect of a broken system; a system that WE ALL NEED TO CHANGE.

Sure, the game of “whack-a-mole” may be fun. But all games become boring over time. And as discussed above, this game may end up being detrimental to your well-being, or that of your children/grandchildren.

Like I said, there are other forums for more serious discussion available. Patch was never intended to be the place for intellectuals to meet and swap polite repartee. You might as well bemoan all other forms of communication in this country as well, because we have a variety of broadcast and print options ranging from the mundane and general to the esoteric and near indecipherable (to the average person).

I'm going to take issue with your claim that we let politicians off the hook because we're distracted by the nonsense. While I disagree with it wholeheartedly, we just recently had a very real example of a number of office holders right here in WI whose positions were challenged by petition and forced to reaffirm (or not) the offices they hold. Similarly, we have elections on a regular basis for various positions, with current officeholders as often as not being replaced. We live in an age where very little remains secret for long and where it's near impossible to hide nefarious activities.

In short, bemoaning the state of discussion here because it doesn't rise to a certain level ignores the fact that these types of discussions weren't even possible 25 years ago. This medium has its benefits and its drawbacks like any other. You take the good with the bad. All in all, in terms of interaction and dissemination of information, there is a lot of good that outweighs the bad - and you get to decide, for yourself, which is which - nobody is doing it for you.

Bob:

I don't consider any of my foregoing commentary to be intellectual. The underlying views are pretty basic. A broken government not properly addressed by self-serving politicians, all in the face of a distracted constituency. And if you disagree with my views, which you are certainly entitled to do, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

No, but you did say you found the approximately 250 comments (at the time) contained within this section to be pure, almost meaningless rhetoric. This comment section is no different than any other to be found on Patch. I'm suggesting that if you don't find the comment section up to your standards, rather than discount the comments of others who use it, you may wish to find another forum more to your liking. Beyond Patch's terms of service, there are no restrictions here regarding whether or not a person's post has to rise to a certain level of meaningfulness.

I just find it interesting that from time to time here we have people who refer to the comments section as this or that (a mud pit comes to mind) and, yet, they still use it themselves - in some cases after making a resolution not to do so. Nobody's forced to use Patch or agree with everything or anything anyone says here, nor are they endorsing anyone else's message or mode of usage by using it themselves.

Similarly, I just find it interesting that for a majority of the time here we have people who criticize this commenter or that commenter (the author of a mud pit comment comes to mind) and, yet, they still maintain an online correspondence with those they are so critical of.

@pathreader Bob is not in your league. He defends the assinine attitudes within Patch and yet somehow exonerates those people within its confines. God bless, move onto a better venue.

@patchreader Loneliness has its own refuge.

I'm not the one sitting here dissing an entire thread and criticizing "the game" while adding comments of no greater value than the ones being criticized and playing the same game. The reason I engage the mud pit commenter is the same reason I'm engaging you. You both paint with a broad brush everyone else around you and then engage in exactly the same thing.

Again, if you find it objectionable, whether it be because of the rhetoric or its mud pit like nature, no one is forcing you to be here. It is what it is. However, if someone says it's a mud pit, makes a big production of saying they're going to stay away and then within 24 hours jumps back in and muddies things up themselves, I'm gonna call them on it. If I did that, I'd expect to have the same thing happen to me.

@Bob Try golf or knitting or whatever. Christ, you obviously have nothing better o do than preside as the king of Patch! Heck, you have a better mind than that!

Mike, it honestly doesn't take all that much time or effort. I spend a lot of time at the computer for work related purposes with a lot of down time. I appreciate your insincere concern but it's really unnecessary.

@Bob I wasn't being insincere. I am saying that you should write a book of your own choosing. I can see that it would have a heck of a lot of substance. Don't waste your time on Patch- it leads no where.

Nah, McBride isn't King of the Patch. He's more like a Steward, holding down the throne until Hoffa returns.

What the hell ever happened to that guy...

Under Lambeau Field?

Hmm... my name is more of an adjective ... car fire, of a mysterious nature ... strange accusations and a public airing of unwanted touching... more strange communications pass across our patch screens from 'one time only' screen name posters ... police involved by later step away...

Hoffa is under Lambeau Field.

"What the hell ever happened to that guy.."

I dunno. I miss him. Even though he made me tear out my hair on a regular basis..

I think Jay's onto something here...

At least I focus with precision rather than scatter blast about the place. And what have you really added here, besides the buckshot?

Oh, oh yeah? Well, at, . . . at least I don't offer up criticisms of commenters even, . . . even before they comment (i.e., "3, 2, 1;" "wait for it"). Yeah. That's it. Even before they comment. At least I don't do that. So there. Psych!

Give it a rest already. It’s Friday night, and I have a social life to tend to. You, on the other hand, will likely be on this blog until you hit the sheets.

So, good night, Bob. Paint me with precision another time. I’ll likely return to this blog in a day or two. Should you need to satisfy your insatiable urge to criticize someone before then, go after the mud-comment author. Or maybe the gun rights critic. They’re each likely on here more often than I am. Otherwise, withdrawal can give one a cold sweat and the shakes. Brrr. Until next time . . .

That would be good. It'll probably take at least a day or two for us to build up another 250 count thread of meaningless rhetoric for you to find fault with. Night.