Lyndsey Graham Who Was Directly Lied To Says House Benghazi Report Full of C R A P

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by liberals like you and Sarah seeing this as a conservative "invention" when one only has to look at how the Obama White House trotted Susan Rice out that Sunday morning to all those talk shows to know that THEY were the ones who were scrambling to diffuse what you refer to

I'm referring to how the Obama White House "managed" the Benghazi story as it broke. The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video? The protracted fight between the Clinton State Department and the intelligence community over the talking points? in The re-write that was done by the White House? The dispatching of Susan Rice to all those Sunday morning talk shows with marching orders from Ben Rhodes to make sure that it wasn't portrayed as a "failure of policy"? The insistence of Jay Carney that only one word in the intelligence reports were changed by the White House? If you don't want to call it a cover-up, Sarah...feel free to assign it a different label. Call it "spin" if that makes you feel better...

I don't think so. They said it was an attack carried out by extremist who took advantage of the protest or somehow hijacked the protest. Just because the PR department wanted to put a spin on the story doesn't mean there was any kind of crime or cover up.

You really don't want to admit that they knew early on that there was no "protest", do you, Boo? Just can't bring yourself to admit that the Obama White House decided to mislead the American people for political reasons, can you? That hasn't changed because of this latest "report". It's still there...it still happened...and all spin in the world isn't going to change that! I'm sorry. That's reality.

The statements were always qualified with the fact that the investigation was ongoing and would be looked to to determine exactly what happened. So no they didn't know for sure what happen, at best they had conflicting reports. I also disagree with your characterization that "The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video?" They got it wrong when they said the extremist joined in or hijacked a protest. But they didn't get the extremist part wrong did they?

This really is a simple concept, Boo...

Was there a protest? Yes or no?

If there was no protest then why did the Obama White House continue to push that narrative after they knew that no protest took place?

If there was no cover-up then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails?

Yes there were protest all over the Middle East that week

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Did they or did they not say that they would have to wait for the investigation to be complete before we would know conclusively what happened?

For there to be a cover-up, there needs to be some crime to cover up. You know like Nixon's covering up the activities of CREEP.

You don't have to have a crime to have a cover-up. What you need is something harmful to you. Nixon covered-up the Watergate break-in not because he was guilty of a crime but because what occurred would have been embarrassing to him politically. Clinton tried to cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal because that was embarrassing to him politically. Obama attempted to cover-up what happened in Benghazi not because it was criminal...he did so because it was embarrassing that as he was running for re-election with a message of Osama bin Laden is dead and Al Queda is on the run that Al Queda murdered a US Ambassador at our Consulate.

 

[Oldstyle]

Are you amused that the trumped up story from the Repub/Teaparty does nothing pro or con to Hillary's 2016 run? It might hurt your candidate tho if she brings it up, which she will.

Of course Benghazi negatively affects any run Hillary makes in 2016, Sarah! ....

THIS is the number one reason why Ghazi truthers are holding onto this like a hungry dog with a steak bone. Once Romney flamed out, ----> HRC, and 2016.

Everyone knows it. You just revealed it As does every Ghazi truther when they get to talking. It's all about stopping Hillary.

Of course it is. They don't like her closest opponent Chris Christie either tho.

As I said before, Sarah...Hillary Clinton needs to worry about opponents in her own party using things like Benghazi to embarrass her before she worries about the GOP using it.

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

 

[Sarah G]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

 

[BlindBoo]

I'm amused by liberals like you and Sarah seeing this as a conservative "invention" when one only has to look at how the Obama White House trotted Susan Rice out that Sunday morning to all those talk shows to know that THEY were the ones who were scrambling to diffuse what you refer to

I don't think so. They said it was an attack carried out by extremist who took advantage of the protest or somehow hijacked the protest. Just because the PR department wanted to put a spin on the story doesn't mean there was any kind of crime or cover up.

You really don't want to admit that they knew early on that there was no "protest", do you, Boo? Just can't bring yourself to admit that the Obama White House decided to mislead the American people for political reasons, can you? That hasn't changed because of this latest "report". It's still there...it still happened...and all spin in the world isn't going to change that! I'm sorry. That's reality.

The statements were always qualified with the fact that the investigation was ongoing and would be looked to to determine exactly what happened. So no they didn't know for sure what happen, at best they had conflicting reports. I also disagree with your characterization that "The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video?" They got it wrong when they said the extremist joined in or hijacked a protest. But they didn't get the extremist part wrong did they?

This really is a simple concept, Boo...

Was there a protest? Yes or no?

If there was no protest then why did the Obama White House continue to push that narrative after they knew that no protest took place?

If there was no cover-up then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails?

Yes there were protest all over the Middle East that week

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Did they or did they not say that they would have to wait for the investigation to be complete before we would know conclusively what happened?

For there to be a cover-up, there needs to be some crime to cover up. You know like Nixon's covering up the activities of CREEP.

You don't have to have a crime to have a cover-up. What you need is something harmful to you. Nixon covered-up the Watergate break-in not because he was guilty of a crime but because what occurred would have been embarrassing to him politically. Clinton tried to cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal because that was embarrassing to him politically. Obama attempted to cover-up what happened in Benghazi not because it was criminal...he did so because it was embarrassing that as he was running for re-election with a message of Osama bin is dead and Al Queda is on the run that Al Queda murdered a US Ambassador at our Consulate.

That must be the worst cover up in History because the entire world knew about the deaths of the four Americans almost as it happened. That they speculated that the extremist used a protest, (like had been springing up across the region in response to an anti-Mohammad trailer on you tube) as a pretext to attack is not a cover-up.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

Nobody really believed the Republican version of Benghazi anyway. Maybe if they'd shut the fuck up and allow the real story to come out, they'd have some credibility. They always have to exaggerate everything to try and get that elusive point out there.

It's so great to have idiots like you, Carbee, Loser, Paper.....bump my threads.....it always gives them life.

Now darlin, you don't know shit about what really happened in Benghazi so why don't YOU shut the fuck up. If you bothered to get outside your liberal propaganda, you'd know this report is stupid.

I think that Graham is being incredibly dishonest on this bogus claim of his about being lied too.

Its a bunch of horsefeathers, nothing more than Lindsey's opinion.

He needs to watch what he says, he is attacking his own party while being wrong.

Political suicide.

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Your claim that "luck" had something to do with Democratic voters not showing up at the polls this election is rather amusing, Sarah. It wasn't luck...it was a total lack of enthusiasm for the liberal agenda of Barack Obama. The voters (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) are underwhelmed by what Progressives have done with the country. The economy continues to tread water six years after the end of the recession...our foreign policy is so discombobulated I don't think it exists any more...and we're far more divided now then when Barack Obama took office.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm amused by liberals like you and Sarah seeing this as a conservative "invention" when one only has to look at how the Obama White House trotted Susan Rice out that Sunday morning to all those talk shows to know that THEY were the ones who were scrambling to diffuse what you refer to
You really don't want to admit that they knew early on that there was no "protest", do you, Boo? Just can't bring yourself to admit that the Obama White House decided to mislead the American people for political reasons, can you? That hasn't changed because of this latest "report". It's still there...it still happened...and all spin in the world isn't going to change that! I'm sorry. That's reality.

The statements were always qualified with the fact that the investigation was ongoing and would be looked to to determine exactly what happened. So no they didn't know for sure what happen, at best they had conflicting reports. I also disagree with your characterization that "The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video?" They got it wrong when they said the extremist joined in or hijacked a protest. But they didn't get the extremist part wrong did they?

This really is a simple concept, Boo...

Was there a protest? Yes or no?

If there was no protest then why did the Obama White House continue to push that narrative after they knew that no protest took place?

If there was no cover-up then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails?

Yes there were protest all over the Middle East that week

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Did they or did they not say that they would have to wait for the investigation to be complete before we would know conclusively what happened?

For there to be a cover-up, there needs to be some crime to cover up. You know like Nixon's covering up the activities of CREEP.

You don't have to have a crime to have a cover-up. What you need is something harmful to you. Nixon covered-up the Watergate break-in not because he was guilty of a crime but because what occurred would have been embarrassing to him politically. Clinton tried to cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal because that was embarrassing to him politically. Obama attempted to cover-up what happened in Benghazi not because it was criminal...he did so because it was embarrassing that as he was running for re-election with a message of Osama bin is dead and Al Queda is on the run that Al Queda murdered a US Ambassador at our Consulate.

That must be the worst cover up in History because the entire world knew about the deaths of the four Americans almost as it happened. That they speculated that the extremist used a protest, (like had been springing up across the region in response to an anti-Mohammad trailer on you tube) as a pretext to attack is not a cover-up.

The cover-up wasn't about the deaths of the four Americans, Blind...the cover-up was done to protect a political narrative that Barack Obama was running for reelection on...namely that he had Al Queda "on the run". When the group that you supposedly have on the run attacks one of your consulates and kills one of your Ambassadors then it's rather obvious that your claim that they are "on the run" is a bit overstated!

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Quite frankly, Sarah...I'm not convinced that she will end up getting the nomination at this early point. A lot can happen between now and then. As you yourself admitted earlier...Hillary Clinton is at times her own worst enemy. Running for the Presidency as a front runner is like jogging in a mine field...one wrong step and everything goes BLAM!

 

[Dot Com]

Looks like Oldstyle has latched-onto this non-story thread like a pit bill simply because he knows no rw candidate can come close to HRC in an election lol

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

 

[Oldstyle]

Looks like Oldstyle has latched-onto this non-story thread like a pit bill simply because he knows no rw candidate can come close to HRC in an election lol

Sent from my BN NookHD+ using Tapatalk

Would that have been your prediction about no Democratic candidates being able to come close to "HRC" prior to 2008, Dottie? Long time between now and when that choice will be made.

 

[Sarah G]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Your claim that "luck" had something to do with Democratic voters not showing up at the polls this election is rather amusing, Sarah. It wasn't luck...it was a total lack of enthusiasm for the liberal agenda of Barack Obama. The voters (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) are underwhelmed by what Progressives have done with the country. The economy continues to tread water six years after the end of the recession...our foreign policy is so discombobulated I don't think it exists any more...and we're far more divided now then when Barack Obama took office.

Wrong again. Boy, I've never seen anyone who could be wrong so many times, not even here.

 

[Claudette]

I'd be surprised if HRC runs.

Hell her own party threw her under the bus in 2008.

She also has already shows what how incompetant she is.

She couldn't even handle the State Department when she was SOS. Benghazi happened on her watch and her State Department did nothing.

One has to wonder how she would handle being POTUS. Thats something I sure don't want to see.

 

[Claudette]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Your claim that "luck" had something to do with Democratic voters not showing up at the polls this election is rather amusing, Sarah. It wasn't luck...it was a total lack of enthusiasm for the liberal agenda of Barack Obama. The voters (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) are underwhelmed by what Progressives have done with the country. The economy continues to tread water six years after the end of the recession...our foreign policy is so discombobulated I don't think it exists any more...and we're far more divided now then when Barack Obama took office.

Yup exit polling proved that. Most Americans aren't happy with the direction the country is going and last I heard Barry and his posse are the group directing it.

Guess they aren't in favor of illegal immigrants granted amnesty and other illegal kids dumped her for the taxpayers to pay for.

The ACA isn't turning anyone on either especially when folks get a load of their dedictables.

My benefit costs are going up 30% because of the ACA and you can bet everyone elses are going up as well. The only folks who will like it are those the rest of us will be subsidizing.

Loads of things to not be happy about if your a taxpayer.

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Your claim that "luck" had something to do with Democratic voters not showing up at the polls this election is rather amusing, Sarah. It wasn't luck...it was a total lack of enthusiasm for the liberal agenda of Barack Obama. The voters (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) are underwhelmed by what Progressives have done with the country. The economy continues to tread water six years after the end of the recession...our foreign policy is so discombobulated I don't think it exists any more...and we're far more divided now then when Barack Obama took office.

Yup exit polling proved that. Most Americans aren't happy with the direction the country is going and last I heard Barry and his posse are the group directing it.

Guess they aren't in favor of illegal immigrants granted amnesty and other illegal kids dumped her for the taxpayers to pay for.

The ACA isn't turning anyone on either especially when folks get a load of their dedictables.

My benefit costs are going up 30% because of the ACA and you can bet everyone elses are going up as well. The only folks who will like it are those the rest of us will be subsidizing.

Wait until they get a load of the price tag on legalizing all of those illegals!

 

[Oldstyle]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Your claim that "luck" had something to do with Democratic voters not showing up at the polls this election is rather amusing, Sarah. It wasn't luck...it was a total lack of enthusiasm for the liberal agenda of Barack Obama. The voters (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) are underwhelmed by what Progressives have done with the country. The economy continues to tread water six years after the end of the recession...our foreign policy is so discombobulated I don't think it exists any more...and we're far more divided now then when Barack Obama took office.

Wrong again. Boy, I've never seen anyone who could be wrong so many times, not even here.

What am I wrong on, Sarah? You got very "general" all of a sudden. Is the economy not treading water? Is our foreign policy not in tatters at the moment? Are we not more divided now than at any time you can remember?

 

[BlindBoo]

att

The statements were always qualified with the fact that the investigation was ongoing and would be looked to to determine exactly what happened. So no they didn't know for sure what happen, at best they had conflicting reports. I also disagree with your characterization that "The effort that was expended to paint it as just another protest about the YouTube video?" They got it wrong when they said the extremist joined in or hijacked a protest. But they didn't get the extremist part wrong did they?

This really is a simple concept, Boo...

Was there a protest? Yes or no?

If there was no protest then why did the Obama White House continue to push that narrative after they knew that no protest took place?

If there was no cover-up then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails?

Yes there were protest all over the Middle East that week

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Did they or did they not say that they would have to wait for the investigation to be complete before we would know conclusively what happened?

For there to be a cover-up, there needs to be some crime to cover up. You know like Nixon's covering up the activities of CREEP.

You don't have to have a crime to have a cover-up. What you need is something harmful to you. Nixon covered-up the Watergate break-in not because he was guilty of a crime but because what occurred would have been embarrassing to him politically. Clinton tried to cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal because that was embarrassing to him politically. Obama attempted to cover-up what happened in Benghazi not because it was criminal...he did so because it was embarrassing that as he was running for re-election with a message of Osama bin is dead and Al Queda is on the run that Al Queda murdered a US Ambassador at our Consulate.

That must be the worst cover up in History because the entire world knew about the deaths of the four Americans almost as it happened. That they speculated that the extremist used a protest, (like had been springing up across the region in response to an anti-Mohammad trailer on you tube) as a pretext to attack is not a cover-up.

The cover-up wasn't about the deaths of the four Americans, Blind...the cover-up was done to protect a political narrative that Barack Obama was running for reelection on...namely that he had Al Queda "on the run". When the group that you supposedly have on the run attacks one of your consulates and kills one of your Ambassadors then it's rather obvious that your claim that they are "on the run" is a bit overstated!

The group of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9-11, or the USS Cole in 2000, or our Embassies in Africa in 1998, is not the same group that assaulted the consulate in Benghazi. They usually went for large truck bombs or worse, to kill large numbers of innocent people. Even still President Obama warned us on the night he announced Osama's killing: "Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us." So there really was no overstatement.

 

[Dot Com]

I'd be surprised if HRC runs.

Hell her own party threw her under the bus in 2008.

She also has already shows what how incompetant she is.

She couldn't even handle the State Department when she was SOS. Benghazi happened on her watch and her State Department did nothing.

One has to wonder how she would handle being POTUS. Thats something I sure don't want to see.

I wouldn't vote for her for three reasons:

1) I don't like dynasties

2) I don't like corporate Democrats.

3) I refuse to vote for either of the two major parties as they both work for basically the same people

 

[Oldstyle]

att

This really is a simple concept, Boo...

Was there a protest? Yes or no?

If there was no protest then why did the Obama White House continue to push that narrative after they knew that no protest took place?

If there was no cover-up then why did the Obama White House reclassify the Ben Rhodes emails?

Yes there were protest all over the Middle East that week

Timeline Protests over anti-Islam video - Middle East - Al Jazeera English

Did they or did they not say that they would have to wait for the investigation to be complete before we would know conclusively what happened?

For there to be a cover-up, there needs to be some crime to cover up. You know like Nixon's covering up the activities of CREEP.

You don't have to have a crime to have a cover-up. What you need is something harmful to you. Nixon covered-up the Watergate break-in not because he was guilty of a crime but because what occurred would have been embarrassing to him politically. Clinton tried to cover up the Monica Lewinsky scandal because that was embarrassing to him politically. Obama attempted to cover-up what happened in Benghazi not because it was criminal...he did so because it was embarrassing that as he was running for re-election with a message of Osama bin is dead and Al Queda is on the run that Al Queda murdered a US Ambassador at our Consulate.

That must be the worst cover up in History because the entire world knew about the deaths of the four Americans almost as it happened. That they speculated that the extremist used a protest, (like had been springing up across the region in response to an anti-Mohammad trailer on you tube) as a pretext to attack is not a cover-up.

The cover-up wasn't about the deaths of the four Americans, Blind...the cover-up was done to protect a political narrative that Barack Obama was running for reelection on...namely that he had Al Queda "on the run". When the group that you supposedly have on the run attacks one of your consulates and kills one of your Ambassadors then it's rather obvious that your claim that they are "on the run" is a bit overstated!

The group of al Qaeda that attacked us on 9-11, or the USS Cole in 2000, or our Embassies in Africa in 1998, is not the same group that assaulted the consulate in Benghazi. They usually went for large truck bombs or worse, to kill large numbers of innocent people. Even still President Obama warned us on the night he announced Osama's killing: "Yet his death does not mark the end of our effort. There’s no doubt that al Qaeda will continue to pursue attacks against us." So there really was no overstatement.

So when Obama made the statement that Al Queda was on the run you don't think he overstated the situation just a "bit", Boo?

 

[Sarah G]

The truth of the matter is that the "love" that Bill Clinton engenders from most Democrats does not carry over to Hillary. She has a history of conflicts with other Democrats that Bill simply doesn't have.

I think you may be talking about Republicans hating Hillary. I voted for her and so did 18,000,000 other voters in her primaries. She and Barack Obama were virtually tied. The result came down to delegates, if you can recall that race. That was the one where Rush Limpballs thought up Operation Chaos I and II but to no avail because he was convinced Republican McCain could beat her in the General.

You guys have some weird ideas about things. You're very lucky Democratic voters were also upset with their candidates this time and didn't show up to vote. It won't be the same scenario in 2016. Hillary will win.

Your claim that "luck" had something to do with Democratic voters not showing up at the polls this election is rather amusing, Sarah. It wasn't luck...it was a total lack of enthusiasm for the liberal agenda of Barack Obama. The voters (Democrats, Independents and Republicans) are underwhelmed by what Progressives have done with the country. The economy continues to tread water six years after the end of the recession...our foreign policy is so discombobulated I don't think it exists any more...and we're far more divided now then when Barack Obama took office.

Wrong again. Boy, I've never seen anyone who could be wrong so many times, not even here.

What am I wrong on, Sarah? You got very "general" all of a sudden. Is the economy not treading water? Is our foreign policy not in tatters at the moment? Are we not more divided now than at any time you can remember?

I guess I'm just bored with you and your talking points. You're boring, guy.