ADVERTISEMENT

Americans skeptical of both Clinton, Republicans on Benghazi

cigaretteman

HB King
May 29, 2001
79,327
62,334
113
2300-benghazi-investigation-seen-as-politically-motivated.jpg

By Peyton M. Craighill and Anne Gearan October 22 at 7:00 AM
Americans have much to grumble about in the fallout from the deadly attacks on U.S. compounds in Benghazi, Libya, in 2012. Majorities in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll disapprove of the way Hillary Rodham Clinton has handled questions about the attacks and her conduct using a personal e-mail server while secretary of state.

But a nearly equal majority identify the Republican-led investigation into the events as a politically motivated attempt to damage the former secretary of state rather than an effort to raise legitimate concerns.

[Read full poll results]

Clinton testifies Thursday before the House committee investigating Benghazi, a long-planned showdown between the Democratic presidential front-runner and investigators whom her supporters accuse of conducting a partisan witch-hunt. Clinton is expected to repeat her long-standing claim that she had nothing to do with State Department decisions that might have averted or blunted the attacks that killed four Americans, including the sitting U.S. ambassador to Libya.

A Clinton campaign aide said Wednesday that diplomats must continue to work in dangerous places and take risks, and that a retrenchment would draw the wrong lessons from Benghazi.

2300-disapproval-of-clintons-handling-benghazi-highly-partisan.jpg

Clinton will talk about Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens, a rising star whom Clinton knew and had sworn in for his post, and his embrace of the foreign policy concept of “expeditionary diplomacy,” said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to preview some of Clinton’s testimony.

In the new Post-ABC poll, 36 percent approve of Clinton’s handling of questions about her e-mails while 57 percent disapprove. The result is nearly identical on Benghazi, with 35 percent approving and 54 percent disapproving. There has been little change in the public’s negative assessment of Clinton since May — 55-57 percent have disapproved of her answers to questions about her personal e-mail server, and 50-54 percent disapprove of her answers on Benghazi.

Clinton exclusive use of a private e-mail system for her government work came to light because of the committee’s work. The FBI is investigating whether classified information was compromised.

Critics of the House Select Committee on Benghazi were emboldened by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s suggestion last month that the panel was created with an eye toward damaging Clinton’s poll numbers, an accusation Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) has denied.

Clinton and her allies pounced immediately, pointing to McCarthy’s gaffe as evidence of what they claim was a plan all along to use the power of the congressional investigative committee to search for damaging information about Clinton and call her to testify in what could be uncomfortable circumstances. The deaths marred Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state, one of her main qualifications for the White House.

But the poll results suggest that McCarthy’s statement did not change Americans’ views on Clinton’s actions, even though they are skeptical of Republicans’ motives. Fifty-three percent in the new poll said Republicans are mainly trying to damage Clinton with the hearing, while 35 percent say they are mainly raising legitimate concerns.

That is a more negative picture than found in a related question from more than two years ago. In May 2013, the public divided nearly equally on whether House Republicans were raising legitimate concerns (44 percent) or whether their inquiries merely offered members an opportunity for political grandstanding (45 percent).


As Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton prepares to testify before the House Select Committee on Benghazi, here's a breakdown of what happened from the attack on Sept. 12, 2011 to the current political controversy. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)
Both Clinton’s e-mails and the committee’s motives elicit sharp partisan differences. More than 8 in 10 Republicans disapprove of the way Clinton is handling questions about Benghazi and her dealings with her private e-mail account. A smaller majority of Democrats, about 6 in 10, approve of Clinton’s handling of questions on each issue, with about 3 in 10 disapproving. Independents are more negative, with 55 percent disapproving of Clinton’s answers on Benghazi and 60 percent disapproving of her responses about personal e-mail.

Attitudes are a mirror image when rating Republicans on Benghazi. More than 8 in 10 Democrats say the investigation is aimed at damaging Clinton, while 65 percent of Republicans say it’s raising legitimate concerns; 31 percent say it is in part politically motivated (mainly or “both” raising legitimate issues and aimed at Clinton together). Independents are downbeat again — by 53 to 35 percent, more say Republican investigators are focused on hurting Clinton.

The Post-ABC poll was conducted Oct. 15-18 among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including land-line and cellphone respondents. Full results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...ed7bfe-7830-11e5-a958-d889faf561dc_story.html
 
My problem is the way it was presented after everything was said and done. They kept saying it's a video, it's a video and that just wasn't the case. It smelled bad and seemed like the video thing was just for re election and just not the truth.
 
Ciggy...why do you continue to post MSM sources as gospel when they have such a long history of lying to Americans as a propaganda tool for the Elite, which you purport to oppose?
 
Something really ****ed up happened at Benghazi, but the republicans don't care about that. They only care about going after "Her Thighness" because she's a democrat. That's why people don't trust either one of them. They realize that both are extremely dirty.
 
Because I'm not a paranoid wacko ;).
That's a reply I would expect from a clueless twit. I'm being dead serious. You're a flaming liberal who espouses all the DNC talking points (playing the tax the rich card comes to mind). Yet, WaPo was owned for the longest time by Eugene Meyer, former Fed Chairman and Lazard Freres agent of the Rothchilds. Why?

W/o your copy and paste, you're nothing.
 
Not very good news for the GOP. Looks like the public has turned against them with this issue. As the election rolls along, it will become even less of an issue. And if the FBI finds now wrongdoing with her emails, it makes you wonder what "scandal" the right will be forced to glom onto?
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
That's a reply I would expect from a clueless twit. I'm being dead serious. You're a flaming liberal who espouses all the DNC talking points (playing the tax the rich card comes to mind). Yet, WaPo was owned for the longest time by Eugene Meyer, former Fed Chairman and Lazard Freres agent of the Rothchilds. Why?

W/o your copy and paste, you're nothing.
You're not serious with this train of thought, are you? You really believe there some massive conspiracy theory in the msm to cover Hillary's tracks?
 
You're not serious with this train of thought, are you? You really believe there some massive conspiracy theory in the msm to cover Hillary's tracks?
Yes, I am. As I explained in another post, the Clinton's turned over Glass-Steagall and student loans are no longer non-dischargeable. This was a boon to the Banksters. Killery has friends who pull strings. It's really not that hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NoleSoup4U
Yes, I am. As I explained in another post, the Clinton's turned over Glass-Steagall and student loans are no longer non-dischargeable. This was a boon to the Banksters. Killery has friends who pull strings. It's really not that hard.
So big banks are involved in this, as well? Who else is pulling strings?
 
So big banks are involved in this, as well? Who else is pulling strings?
Does there have to be anyone else? Newspapers don't need readers to thrive, they need ad $$$$. When companies need loans, they go to the bankers to fund expansion. He who pays the band calls the tune.

You do realize that darn near every editor and publisher of Establishment organs all belong to the CFR whose Chairman Emeritus is David Rockefeller. Are you not familiar with this family?
 
The Obama NSA

Does there have to be anyone else? Newspapers don't need readers to thrive, they need ad $$$$. When companies need loans, they go to the bankers to fund expansion. He who pays the band calls the tune.
So to get all this straight:

1. Pepsi wants to take an ad out in the Washington Post,
2. But before they can, Pepsi has to go to a bank for a loan.
3. But the bank's loan officer tells Pepsi that if they want the money, they have to first tell WaPo that they need to manipulate a Benghazi poll in Hillary's favor.
4. Pepsi then goes to WaPo, tells them this and WaPo says, "Sure, we'll manipulate some Benghazi polls so that you can get a loan to take out ad space in our publication."

Seems legit to me...
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Independents dont like Hillary that's why she cant win.
It's right in your poll!

Dems believe her Republicans dont.
55 % of Independent dont like her in your poll.

That means she is in real trouble in a general election.
 
* POLLS MIXED ON HILLARY AND GOP PROBES: The new Fox News poll finds that 60 percent of Americans think Clinton has been dishonest about Benghazi. But:

Despite doubts that Clinton has been honest, less than half of voters (46 percent) think Congress should continue investigating her handling of the terrorist attack. Exactly half say it’s time for lawmakers to move on (50 percent).

Meanwhile, the new CNN poll finds that a majority think Clinton’s handling of her emails is an indicator of her character. But 72 percent say the Republicans’ Benghazi committee is mostly about reaping political gain.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...ry-will-try-to-turn-tables-on-benghazi-today/
 
So to get all this straight:

1. Pepsi wants to take an ad out in the Washington Post,
2. But before they can, Pepsi has to go to a bank for a loan.
3. But the bank's loan officer tells Pepsi that if they want the money, they have to first tell WaPo that they need to manipulate a Benghazi poll in Hillary's favor.
4. Pepsi then goes to WaPo, tells them this and WaPo says, "Sure, we'll manipulate some Benghazi polls so that you can get a loan to take out ad space in our publication."

Seems legit to me...
I get it You're doing schtick now. Save it for the Catskills, Henny Youngman.
 
Why do they poll more Democrats than Republicans every time?
I think it's based on numbers of registered voters. If more voters are registered as "democrat" then you'll have more democrats than republicans in your survey.

It's just a way of being representative of the voter population as a whole. I get what you're saying though, which is why it's important to look at the raw numbers and not just percentages.
 
I think it's based on numbers of registered voters. If more voters are registered as "democrat" then you'll have more democrats than republicans in your survey.

It's just a way of being representative of the voter population as a whole. I get what you're saying though, which is why it's important to look at the raw numbers and not just percentages.
Makes sense thanks for the response.

I think Democrats would be less happy if they saw where independents poll on this issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mstp1992
My problem is the way it was presented after everything was said and done. They kept saying it's a video, it's a video and that just wasn't the case. It smelled bad and seemed like the video thing was just for re election and just not the truth.

But what..eight hearings over a narrative? and millions of dollars. There was so much bullshit about the lead-up to Iraq, the decisions made in Iraq and the narrative about Iraq. Why haven't Cheney or Rumsfield had a public hearings? Just a report was made via private interviews. Couldnt have the same been done with Benghazi?
 
But what..eight hearings over a narrative? and millions of dollars. There was so much bullshit about the lead-up to Iraq, the decisions made in Iraq and the narrative about Iraq. Why haven't Cheney or Rumsfield had a public hearings? Just a report was made via private interviews. Couldnt have the same been done with Benghazi?

Or Clinton could have just come out said we lied about the video because BO was needing to get re-elected so that is what we put out there because a terrorist attack would not have been good for re-election.

To be honest if she said that right away we probably wouldn't be here today and the minions would still fall in behind her because that was long gone.
 
Or Clinton could have just come out said we lied about the video because BO was needing to get re-elected so that is what we put out there because a terrorist attack would not have been good for re-election.

That is the truth right there!
 
So far I'd say Clinton is doing fine. Rs are looking nervous.

Kind of funny, I had the total opposite feeling. I thought the Sidney Blumenthal questioning was pretty telling. BUT, like I said. She should have just been honest about it at first and the minions would fall right in behind her.
 
Kind of funny, I had the total opposite feeling. I thought the Sidney Blumenthal questioning was pretty telling. BUT, like I said. She should have just been honest about it at first and the minions would fall right in behind her.
That's pretty much when the R wheels came off IMO. She's looking very cool and Presidential while the Rs look like they can't understand basic english.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT