What if I told you that there were fewer embassy attacks under Clinton than her predecessor as Sectretary of State?
None was this vicious. And it was all her making. Her policies helped create two failed states. Three, if we also count her senatorial career and Iraq.
How the hell else would you define "vicious" in any meaningful sense other than the number of people killed? You are aware that there were 15+ embassy attacks during GWB's tenure and that more than 60 State Department officials were killed in those, right? Yet we're to believe that this one attack is somehow fundamentally worse than all of those combined? Is GWB and his State Department not just as responsible - if not more so - for the two failed states that they helped create? Is the GOP congress not responsible for its gutting of security revenue to the State Department in 2011?
Jesus Christ, the hypocrisy is strong with this one. This is why I call y'all "Benghazi enthusiasts" - because your enthusiasm has nothing to do with a consistent application of morality over these sorts of events, but instead, consists of you and your friends fapping over four dead bodies for political gain. You'd have impeached Bush yourselves if you had even a fraction of the concern per dead State Department American as you do over this one particular incident.
None of those people is running for president. Hillary is.
Thanks for admitting that it's purely political, and that people who die under departments overseen by those not seeking elected office aren't worth anything.
Intriguing angle there, suggesting that GWB wasn't running for office in 2004, though.
