Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 23, 2014, 04:27:35 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
83383 Posts in 2260 Topics by 1067 Members
Latest Member: Shinobi Dog
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 Print
Author Topic: The Hillbillary Clintons long, sordid, and often criminal history  (Read 42382 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #250 on: June 11, 2014, 09:04:14 PM »

http://www.mrconservative.com/2013/09/24679-clintons-mistress-comes-forward-says-hillary-clinton-is-bisexual/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #251 on: June 11, 2014, 11:53:10 PM »

Flowers is only alleging that Bill, a known cheater and liar, told her, not that she had any personal, direct knowledge.


Referring back when they "struggled" with money, were "dead broke", and had to charge such inordinate speaking fees because Bill grew up poor.  But why didn't she buy a Wall Street Journal subscription - again - and put a couple dollars down on commodities futures?  It worked last time.  Or was she lying then?


Gaffes continued:  “I actually write about Rahm in the book,” Clinton said. “I asked him not to read it before we sat and did our interview! But it was in the very first chapter, the chapter I rightly call ‘Team of Rivals’ because that’s what it was in the beginning. A senator from Illinois ran against a senator from New York just as had happened way back with a senator from Illinois named Lincoln and a senator from New York named Seward. And it turned out the same way.”

Ummm, Abraham Lincoln was never a Senator.  This is not an off the cuff mis-speak but a carefully thought out analogy - that happens to be wrong.  I wonder how much money they made renting out the Lincoln bedroom without ever knowing what the guy did for a living.


News Reports confirm what I alleged last week:  "Fact Check: Hillary came up with Benghazi video explanation"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/11/fact-check-what-hillary-left-out-benghazi-chapter/

Hillary Clinton’s newly released memoir leaves little doubt she was the first member of the Obama administration to publicly link an anti-Islam video to the 2012 Benghazi terror attack – though she does not explain what intelligence she relied on to make the faulty connection.

The former secretary of State and potential Democratic presidential candidate discussed the Benghazi attack in her memoir “Hard Choices.” The 33-page Benghazi chapter sheds some light on events, but it leaves plenty of inconvenient details out.

According to the chronology she offers, Clinton issued the statement linking Benghazi to the video before she called President Obama on the night of the attack to provide an update, suggesting she was the originator of the flawed explanation.

The State Department press release, issued in her name, on Sept. 11, 2012 at 10:07 p.m., tied the death of Foreign Service officer Sean Smith to the video. Later that evening, a mortar strike killed former Navy SEALs Ty Woods and Glen Doherty, permanently maimed another CIA contractor and severely injured diplomatic security agent David Ubben – all of whom were defending the CIA annex. U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens also died in the Benghazi assault.

The accuracy of the mortar attack, three out of five rounds on target, from more than a half mile away in the dark of night in under a minute, required military training, and premeditation according to multiple military and intelligence professionals.

“As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss,”Clinton’s press release said. “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet."

In her book, Clinton makes passing reference to the Sept. 11 press release, and the former secretary of state offers this argument for citing the video:that violence was erupting all over the Middle East and the obscure Internet video was to blame, throwing Benghazi, without credible intelligence reporting, into the same category.

“[The video] was unquestionably inciting the region and triggering protests all over, so it would have been strange not to consider, as days of protests unfolded, that it might have had the same effect here, too,"Clinton wrote. "That's just common sense."


What else does she know that isn't true?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #252 on: June 12, 2014, 10:17:18 AM »

Update on Hillary running or not and my bet with ccp:

There is no doubt she is acting like a candidate with the release and promotion of this book.  This is a full blown trial balloon, if not the kickoff.

There is no doubt she HATED the tough questions from Diane Sawyer.  How dare her ask that!

There is no doubt she lacks the political magic and skill of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.  She also exhibited NO CONCEPT of the idea of managing people.  The only way she could think of to have done more to protect the facility in Benghazi would be to have taken courses in analyzing blueprints!

But there is still plenty of doubt as to whether or not she knows she is a lousy candidate and that this will end again in failure.  No one hired by her campaign is going to tell her that and her husband isn't going to do it.  He probably can't duck fast enough anymore when she throws the lamp at him.

What happens when we see and hear more of Hillary:
"Hillary Clinton favorability rating keeps falling, poll shows"  (Who knew that would happen?)
http://politics.suntimes.com/article/washington/hillary-clinton-favorability-rating-keeps-falling-poll-shows/wed-06112014-904am
http://www.gallup.com/poll/171290/smaller-majority-americans-view-hillary-clinton-favorably.aspx

This is before news of her gaffes starts to spread.
The 18-time Most Admired Woman was at her lowest of the last 12 years when running for President.
The Presidential table was set for her far better in 2008 than it is in 2016.  Bush finally leaving instead of Obama finally leaving.

Here is your choice Hillary: Go out on top as the most admired woman, or forever be known as a loser.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #253 on: June 12, 2014, 10:27:19 AM »



Her whole life has built up to this moment.  She is a shoo-in for the Dem nomination and the Rep field is strikingly weak.  She has the vast left wing conspiracy of the Pravdas on her side.

She will run.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #254 on: June 12, 2014, 11:17:31 AM »

Her whole life has built up to this moment.  She is a shoo-in for the Dem nomination and the Rep field is strikingly weak.  She has the vast left wing conspiracy of the Pravdas on her side.

She will run.

Some smart people agree with you:

Based on Intrade.com trading:  Hillary is more than a 3:1 favorite for the Democratic nomination. http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2007/12/hillary-31-dem-favorite-3-way-tie-for.html#sthash.NpvAnAIL.dpuf

the contours of the presidential race are now clear. On the Democratic side, the nomination is still Hillary Clinton's to lose. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/hillary_is_still_the_strong_fa.html

Clinton begins the long campaign as the clear front-runner for the Democratic nomination, according to a nationwide Washington Post-ABC News poll  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/20/AR2007012000426.html

Hillary Clinton, Giuliani Early Favorites  A look at the next presidential election
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14053/hillary-clinton-giuliani-early-favorites-2008.aspx

Hillary Clinton is favorite of Democrats
http://www.chron.com/news/politics/article/Hillary-Clinton-is-favorite-of-Democrats-for-2008-1966567.php

Majority of Americans say they are likely to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton if she runs for president
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-05-26-hillary-poll_x.htm?csp=34

Hillary Clinton Easily Paces Democratic Field
Two-thirds of Americans rate her as a strong leader
http://www.gallup.com/poll/17773/hillary-clinton-easily-paces-democratic-field.aspx

Can She Be Stopped?: Hillary Clinton Will Be the Next President of the United States
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001G7RCFC


Whoops, that was all about 2008, before she began to campaign.  To be fair, she did run that year.

Did anyone get it right - early in that race?

G M
Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 12:51:04 AM »
It's so far off, it's hard to say how it'll all unfold, but I will say that Obama is the front runner for the nomination, if not the presidency.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1141.msg9028#msg9028
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4198


« Reply #255 on: June 12, 2014, 12:47:16 PM »

"The Presidential table was set for her far better in 2008 than it is in 2016.  Bush finally leaving instead of Obama finally leaving."

I agree with statement.  She is already preparing to distance herself as the tough moderate.  As one who can reach across the aisle ("like her husband did", if you believe the rewriting of history).

The support she has of the left, who have no better candidate so far, is unbelievable.   A small portion of it is ideology, such as the girly movement, but most seems to me to be from those who hope to profit handsomely from her Presidency.   

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #256 on: June 12, 2014, 05:23:57 PM »

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/349787.php
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4198


« Reply #257 on: June 12, 2014, 09:47:27 PM »

It is always a pleasure to see Hillary squirm about her lying.

Yet, sadly half the country could care less about lying with the ubiquitous come back,
"they all do it".  Ever point out her lying to a lib.  When boxed in with logic this is ALWAYS the comeback.

In my view lying should automatically cancel one out for any public office.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #258 on: June 13, 2014, 10:06:19 AM »

It is always a pleasure to see Hillary squirm about her lying.

Yet, sadly half the country could care less about lying with the ubiquitous come back,
"they all do it".  Ever point out her lying to a lib.  When boxed in with logic this is ALWAYS the comeback.

In my view lying should automatically cancel one out for any public office.

I didn't listen to the exchange but lying was only one of the character defects exposed.  Maybe people will get tired of the lying or maybe it is something else about her that will end this charade.  Her temper, her arrogance, her record of failure, her lack of people skills, lack of professional management skills, and especially her inability to admit she is wrong -  all come to mind.

Most importantly, whether the name is Barack Obama, or Hillary Clinton, whether it is the first half-black or the first woman President,  people should be tired of having their country led in the wrong direction.  People are being lied to everytime they hear that these policies bring economic recovery, prosperity, world peace or a strong America.   After trying these policies, everyone should now recognize failure.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #259 on: June 13, 2014, 10:33:41 AM »

That will require someone else making a better and clearer case.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #260 on: June 13, 2014, 10:51:24 AM »

That will require someone else making a better and clearer case.

Yes it does!

(previously) " the Rep field is strikingly weak"

Doesn't that always appear to be the case before a real leader emerges?  It is darkest before sunrise?  I would say instead that the Republican field is strikingly wide and deep.  Each looks small right now, some with no foreign policy experience, like Reagan, some with no executive experience, like Lincoln, but we need one person to rise to a level of greatness in leadership that we haven't seen in a long time.  It is easy to be pessimistic after a long stretch of weak and flawed candidates, but if there is not one person left in this country who can connect with energy and emotion to the ideas of freedom and strength, then we deserve the demise that is otherwise coming.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #261 on: June 13, 2014, 05:42:15 PM »

Chelsea Clinton received a whopping $600,000 annual salary from NBC for her (almost negligible) work there.
http://www.boston.com/business/news/2014/06/13/chelsea-clinton-earned-whopping-annually-from-nbc/INBD3FSLf8HeoyzmuhAs3I/story.html

They are just like us, student debt, etc.  How much does your kid make for doing "almost negligible work"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hillary is sinking like a stone.  (Who knew?)  It's almost too late for her to step out gracefully while she is still on top:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-06-13/clinton-s-popularity-drops-to-52-as-2016-edge-shrinks.html
Clinton’s Popularity Drops to 52% as 2016 Edge Shrinks
Hillary Clinton’s popularity continues to slide as she takes on a more political posture and Republicans raise questions about the deadly 2012 attack on a U.S. diplomatic post in Libya on her watch.
Fifty-two percent of Americans view the former secretary of state favorably, down from 56 percent in March and 70 percent in December 2012, according to the Bloomberg National Poll.
The decline means Clinton wouldn’t enter a possible 2016 race as a prohibitive favorite over key Republican rivals. While she still bests them in head-to-head matchups, she doesn’t have majority support against any of them.

She doesn't have very much further to fall to be under 50% favorable, down from 18 time most admired woman.

After Hickenlooper wins reelection in Nov, I wouldn't expect HRC to be Dem front runner for very long.   wink



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #262 on: June 14, 2014, 01:02:38 AM »



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0#t=14
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #263 on: June 14, 2014, 01:21:33 PM »



http://www.dickmorris.com/2008-obama-beat-hillary-dick-morris-tv-history-video/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #264 on: June 16, 2014, 04:05:49 PM »



http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2014/06/16/unearthed-audio-hillary-discussed-defending-child-rapist-n1852068?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm 
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #265 on: June 17, 2014, 08:18:34 AM »

Famous people reading the forum?  The number of people in the world who now believe Hillary Won't Run has doubled to two!  (It was getting lonely over here.)

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/06/17/5_reasons_hillary_wont_run_123015.html

5 Reasons Hillary Won't Run
By Tom Bevan - June 17, 2014

Hillary Clinton's minions are hard at work assembling a political machine and fine tuning it for another go at the White House. Mrs. Clinton is doing her part preparing for a run as well, churning out a bland memoir about the "hard choices" she faced as secretary of state and coyly positioning herself (again) as the inevitable nominee of the party. But after the troubled beginning to her book tour, we're beginning to see the reasons why Hillary may eventually decide to pull the plug on a 2016 presidential run. Here are five:

1) She's just not that good at campaigning. If the last two gaffe-prone weeks have reminded us of anything about Hillary, it’s that she’s a mediocre politician at best. Her shortcomings are significant: she can be stiff and wooden in public; she lacks the aura of a natural politician; she’s not a great public speaker, and she can come across as politically flat-footed and tone deaf -- as she did with her “dead broke” response to a rather benign question about relating to the financial challenges of the average voter. People still seem to believe that the Clinton name is synonymous with political skill, but that assumption is only half-true: If Hillary possessed even half of Bill’s political talent and acumen, she wouldn’t have lost to Barack Obama in 2008.

2) The “fire in the belly”question. Certainly, Mrs. Clinton shares her husband’s seemingly limitless ambition. It’s been the driving force behind their existence as individuals and as a couple for more than four decades. But I’m with Mike McCurry on this one: Hillary Rodham Clinton is going to be 67 years old on October 26. Does she really want to spend her golden years working 16 hours a day shaking hands at high school gyms in Dubuque, Iowa, and rubbing elbows at diners in Manchester, New Hampshire? Especially when she can burnish her legacy with meaningful work through the Clinton Global Foundation -- while making millions a year at $200,000 a pop for 45-minute speeches -- and spend time with her soon-to-be born grandchild.

3) It ain’t gonna be a coronation. HRC must have been taken aback last week when two members of the traveling sisterhood – Diane Sawyer of ABC News and Terry Gross of NPR – actually pressed her with uncomfortable questions about Benghazi and gay marriage, respectively. Hillary didn’t respond well in either situation, and the ensuing coverage was instructive. If she can’t count on favorable press coverage during the choreographed rollout of a self-reverential memoir, what does that tell us about how she’d do in debates against a determined opponent? And does Clinton really want to face the scrutiny, not to mention the slings and arrows, that come with any campaign?

4) Obama is leaving a mess. President Obama’s second term is complicating matters significantly for Hillary. His foreign policy, which Clinton helped direct for four years – is adrift. The situation has unraveled dangerously in Syria and now Iraq. The infamous “reset” with Russia is a joke. Obama’s job approval rating is on the slide, and not only on foreign policy. He’s struggling to stay relevant in Washington or to move any sort of domestic agenda forward, which will be made even more difficult if Republicans take the Senate in November. It’s hard to see how any of these dynamics change for the better in the next two years -- and they may get worse. Hillary will not want to be seen as running for Obama’s third term, yet she won’t be able to distance herself too far from his record. That will be a tough needle to thread politically (see point #1).

5) The country wants real change. America was mesmerized by Obama’s call for change in 2008. It was one of the narratives that propelled him over Hillary in the first place. Eight years later, Obama has failed to deliver much of what he promised on uniting the country and changing business as usual in Washington. As a result an even stronger populist, anti-establishment, anti-incumbent fervor is coursing through the electorate. That does not bode well for Hillary Clinton, who embodies the elite establishment -- and the past. If the famed Clinton political acumen still exists in that family, Hillary will figure this out and take a pass on 2016.

Tom Bevan is the co-founder and Executive Editor of RealClearPolitics
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #266 on: June 17, 2014, 08:32:29 AM »

Hillary went to Canada, took questions and has no opinion on Keystone Pipeline!

Let's see.  It's our closest ally.  It's their biggest product.  We are their biggest customer.  It is the safest way by far to ship the stuff.  It is a State Department issue.  And she doesn't have an opinion.

Do you believe that?  I don't believe that.

Of course we should build the pipeline.  (Unless she is a NAFTA supporter who opposes cross-border trade.)
But if and when she says that:
a) She loses support from her wacky base.
b) Her approval numbers go down further
c) She guarantees herself a challenge from the left.

So...  The whole charade is more popular, more profitable, more successful and more fun if she does NOT run or make "Hard Choices".
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #267 on: June 17, 2014, 09:44:37 AM »

I'm thinking Doug has nailed it.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #268 on: June 17, 2014, 10:58:07 AM »

From his lips to God's ears!

But I think her ambition and vanity will win out.  Imagine the tsunami of flattery that will come her way if she decides not to run!  Without her, the Dems have NO ONE.  She will use that tsunami to humbly submit to the people's will, the aspirations of women everywhere, blah blah.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #269 on: June 17, 2014, 03:36:40 PM »

I'm thinking Doug has nailed it. 

Bringing this forward:

Did anyone get it right last time, this early in that race?

G M
Re: The 2008 Presidential Race
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2007, 12:51:04 AM »
It's so far off, it's hard to say how it'll all unfold, but I will say that Obama is the front runner for the nomination, if not the presidency.
http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1141.msg9028#msg9028
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Understood that it is a long shot that a front runner won't run and she most certainly is playing the part of candidate running right now.

Everyone wants their portrait to hang in the halls of glory as President of the United States.  Surely no one on her staff is telling her she is a lousy candidate, lousy campaigner, lousy manage and lousy person.

The job itself is very hard.  We need someone who wants to DO THE JOB, which is to lead the greatest nation in the world.  Current occupant wanted to be President, like the title loves the perks, but does not want to do the job:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/barack-obama-golfs-while-the-middle-east-burns/article/2549799
Middle East burns while Barack Obama played his 175th and 176th (18 hole) rounds of golf as president.

Couple hundred thousand per speech, or get questioned about Keystone, Benghazi, ISIS, Crimea.

Crafty: "Without her, the Dems have NO ONE."

(They have NO One with her! )  In 1992, the Dems had no one, if Mario Cuomo did not run.  Just a few small fish out there, the Governor of Arkansas, etc.  The Dems had no one in 2012 (a failed incumbent) and still won.

In the last 2 weeks, every half-prominent Dem is asking themselves, is this my time, especially if she suddenly announces herself out.  She can't drop out until book sales peter out.   Whoops, maybe now:
http://nypost.com/2014/06/17/sluggish-sales-for-hillarys-new-book/
https://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/publishing-source-hillary-book-bomb_795079.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2660071/Weak-sales-Hillary-Clintons-book.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Flashback:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/huge_increase_in_hillarys_nega.html
April 19, 2007
Huge Increase in Hillary's Negatives Changing Presidential Race
There has been a sudden and highly significant shift in the Democratic Presidential race: Hillary Clinton is rapidly losing her frontrunner position to Barack Obama as her negative ratings climb.
According to the Gallup poll, most Americans don't like Hillary Clinton and the number of people who view her negatively has been steadily increasing ever since she announced her candidacy for President in January.
Hillary isn't wearing well. It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes, as Democratic party voters are abandoning her to support Barack Obama.
In February, Hillary had a 19 point lead over Obama. He is now only 5 points behind her.


Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #270 on: June 18, 2014, 04:48:45 PM »

Doesn't Hillary Clinton Know the Law?
She says she didn't make security decisions on Benghazi. But that's the secretary of state's job.
By Victoria Toensing
June 17, 2014 7:22 p.m. ET

In her interview with ABC's ABCA.FR -0.19% Diane Sawyer last week, Hillary Clinton said "I was not making security decisions" about Benghazi, claiming "it would be a mistake" for "a secretary of state" to "go through all 270 posts" and "decide what should be done." And at a January 2013 Senate hearing, Mrs. Clinton said that security requests "did not come to me. I did not approve them. I did not deny them."

Does the former secretary of state not know the law? By statute, she was required to make specific security decisions for defenseless consulates like Benghazi, and was not permitted to delegate them to anyone else.

The Secure Embassy Construction and Counterterrorism Act of 1999, or Secca, was passed in response to the near-simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, on Aug. 7, 1998. Over 220 people were killed, including 12 Americans. Thousands were injured.


Bill Clinton was president. Patrick Kennedy, now the undersecretary of state for management, was then acting assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security. Susan Rice, now the national security adviser, was then assistant secretary of state for African affairs.

As with the Benghazi terrorist attacks, an Accountability Review Board was convened for each bombing. Their reports, in January 1999, called attention to "two interconnected issues: 1) the inadequacy of resources to provide security against terrorist attacks, and 2) the relative low priority accorded security concerns throughout the U.S. government."

Just as U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens did in 2012, the U.S. ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell, had made repeated requests for security upgrades in 1997 and 1998. All were denied.

Because the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania had been existing office structures, neither met the State Department's security standard for a minimum 100 foot setback zone. A "general exception" was made. The two review boards faulted the fact that "no one person or office is accountable for decisions on security policies, procedures and resources."

To ensure accountability in the future, the review boards recommended "[f]irst and foremost, the Secretary . . . should take a personal and active role in carrying out the responsibility of ensuring the security of U.S. diplomatic personnel abroad" and "should personally review the security situation of embassy chanceries and other official premises." And for new embassy buildings abroad, "all U.S. government agencies, with rare exceptions, should be located in the same compound."

Congress quickly agreed and passed Secca, a law implementing these (and other) recommendations. It mandated that the secretary of state make a personal security waiver under two circumstances: when the facility could not house all the personnel in one place and when there was not a 100-foot setback. The law also required that the secretary "may not delegate" the waiver decision.

Benghazi did not house all U.S. personnel in one building. There was the consulate and an annex, one of the two situations requiring a non-delegable security waiver by the secretary of state.

In October 2012 the Benghazi Accountability Review Board convened, co-chaired by Amb. Thomas Pickering (Ms. Rice's supervisor in 1998) and Adm. Michael Mullen. It failed even to question Mrs. Clinton for its report about the attacks. It also obfuscated the issue of her personal responsibility for key security decisions by using a word other than "waiver," the passive voice, and no names. Recognizing that the Benghazi consulate (like the Nairobi and Dar es Salaam embassies) was a previously nongovernmental building, the Benghazi review board reported that this "resulted in the Special Mission compound being excepted [my emphasis] from office facility standards and accountability under" Secca. No Hillary fingerprints revealed there.

Mrs. Clinton either personally waived these security provisions as required by law or she violated the law by delegating the waiver to someone else. If it was the latter, she shirked the responsibility she now disclaims: to be personally knowledgeable about and responsible for the security in a consulate as vulnerable as Benghazi.

Ms. Toensing was chief counsel for the Senate Intelligence Committee and deputy assistant attorney general in the Reagan administration.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #271 on: June 19, 2014, 01:31:23 PM »

More disciplined than Bill Clinton, more hands-on than Barack Obama, this article goes through her strengths and weaknesses as a candidate and policy maker with serious analysis.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/a-unified-theory-of-hillary-20140618

Lacking the author's same interest in balance, I pick out this: 
The so-called smartest woman in the world started her law career by failing the Washington DC Bar Exam in 1973.  2/3rds of the test takers that year passed the exam.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4198


« Reply #272 on: June 22, 2014, 12:26:00 PM »

The Economist has an article this week on how Hildabeasts book is basically a talking points directive to her mafia army to hit the airwaves with.   Who would ever have guessed?

And of course we are seeing the other obvious and totally predictable moves to separate herself from Brock.   The Benghazi deception was of course, not her idea.  She was serving the President.   Of course we can count her as being in agreement with Obama on every point he polls well on (probably few), and in disagreement (from day one) on every thing he polls poorly on.  Setting the illusion that she is not him, would not govern like him, and of course would be much "smarter" and effective.

I am glad her book is selling very poorly.  Perhaps there is hope that the Clintons cannot simply bribe their way to another top job in the world.   Like we were dead broke and Bill and I struggled to find the money for houses and college tuition. rolleyes wink tongue

http://nypost.com/2014/06/22/clinton-bristled-at-benghazi-deception-book/
« Last Edit: June 22, 2014, 01:33:22 PM by ccp » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #273 on: June 23, 2014, 03:56:23 PM »

Above was told to me yesterday by a VA doctor.This was rejected once by a national referendum.

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #274 on: June 24, 2014, 08:16:48 AM »


And the story was not that had to defend evil as part of her chosen profession, but laughed about his guilt.  She violated his right to attorney client privilege, not just our sense of decency.

Does anyone think a tea party Senate candidate could get away with this?
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #275 on: June 24, 2014, 08:29:44 AM »

THERE’S ONLY ONE POLITICAL GENIUS IN THE CLINTON FAMILY, AND HE ISN’T RUNNING
JUNE 23, 2014 BY JOHN HINDERAKER

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/theres-only-one-political-genius-in-the-clinton-family-and-he-isnt-running.php

Tone deaf material from Chelsea as well as Hillary at the link.  He concludes with:

"Here is a prediction: I have no idea who will be elected president in 2016, but it won’t be Hillary Clinton."

Breakfast in America!  http://dogbrothers.com/phpBB2/index.php?topic=1534.msg81532#msg81532
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #276 on: June 24, 2014, 12:31:54 PM »

A Glimpse of Hillary as President
It is hard to imagine Margaret Thatcher complaining, as Mrs. Clinton did, that 'it was all about my hair.'


By
Dorothy Rabinowitz
connect
June 23, 2014 6:50 p.m. ET

The past few weeks of Hillary Clinton's book tour have given Americans more than a modest whiff of what a future Clinton presidency would bring. Nothing has brought home with more immediacy the role we can expect gender to play in that administration—or more to the point, the focus on anti-women bias about which we would evidently be fated to hear a great deal.

That would come as a change, after what will by then have been eight years of a different ruling focus in the White House—that being, of course, the president's race. Years in which Obama administration staff members, congressional allies and advocates in the political culture regularly nurtured the view—when they weren't making outright accusations—that vociferous opposition to this president, and his policies, was largely fueled by white racism. Jay Rockefeller (D., W.Va.) just last month declared that opposition to ObamaCare came from people who don't like the president "because maybe he's the wrong color."

Attorney General Eric Holder in turn delivered himself of bitter complaints to Al Sharpton's National Action Network in April about the lack of respect accorded him by a House committee. "What attorney general has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment? What president has ever had to deal with that kind of treatment?" Barack Obama had barely taken office, which he could not have won without the vote of white America, when his attorney general charged that the American people were "a nation of cowards" in their dealings with race. Mr. Holder would go on to attack states attempting to curtail voter fraud, to refuse prosecution of members of the New Black Panther Party who had menaced white voters at a Philadelphia polling place, and to become, in all, the most racially polarizing attorney general in the nation's history.
Enlarge Image

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a public appearance at the Long Center in Austin, Texas, June 20. Getty Images

A Hillary Clinton administration would bring change, yes, but much about the change would feel familiar. We were given a small foretaste last week in a statement by Lanny Davis, former special counsel to Bill Clinton and indefatigable Hillary supporter. Mr. Davis had taken offense at the press description of Mrs. Clinton's performance on a National Public Radio program—one that had not gone smoothly for her. He was offended at certain language that had been used to describe Mrs. Clinton's reactions when the NPR interviewer questioned the consistency of her support for gay marriage. Reporters had described her as "testy," "contentious" and "annoyed." Mr. Davis opined that "had it been a man, the words 'testy' and 'annoyed' would not have been used."

Mr. Davis's reflexive discovery of insult to Mrs. Clinton—to women—in those words comes as no surprise. The idea that certain words are demeaning to women, because they're deemed unlikely to be used about men, is by now deep-rooted political faith. Many people were doubtless unaware, until Mr. Davis brought the odd news, that testy is a word not used for men—that hitherto standard descriptive words and phrases might now be subjected to close examination and be rendered illegitimate on the grounds of their potential offensiveness to women.

None of this would come as a shock to anyone with experience of the speech codes and all similar products of the ideological fervor on the nation's campuses today—institutions of learning where any text, any class reference, can be considered harassment or gender bias, should any student raise a claim of discomfort. That ideological fervor wasn't going to be confined to universities and colleges, and it hasn't been. Determining the words that may or may not be used to describe a woman candidate for the presidency is only its bare reflection—the beginning. We will be seeing that fervor full-blown should Mrs. Clinton win election to the White House.

In her conversation with Diane Sawyer on ABC, Mrs. Clinton herself recalled the unwelcome attention to her appearance during her travels as secretary of state. People mentioned her hair, the scrunchie she wore to keep it in place. Try as one may, it's impossible to imagine Margaret Thatcher complaining to an interviewer, as Mrs. Clinton did, that "it was all about my hair."

There are other signs that the tone of a Hillary Clinton presidency would bear strong resemblance to that of Mr. Obama's. Under questioning during her recent media interviews, the former secretary of state deflected all challenging questions—when any were put—with her characteristic unyielding aplomb. Whether queried on al Qaeda's triumphant march to power despite the administration's long-continued assurances that al Qaeda was a spent force—or about disaster in Bashar Assad's Syria, or her own role in the Benghazi catastrophe in Libya—she exuded a serene assurance. And with it, the faintest hint of amazement that such queries should actually be put to her—a cheery puzzlement that anyone should think she had anything to do with what might have gone wrong.

"Let's talk about what was accomplished," she briskly instructed Diane Sawyer, who had asked about Syria and al Qaeda and Benghazi.

Mrs. Clinton could not at that moment have sounded more like the current resident of the White House. Or more like a future one who would be, much like her predecessor, a leader of boundless self-confidence. One also inclined, when presented with the evidence of catastrophic policies of her own making, to wonder what any of that had to do with her.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #277 on: June 28, 2014, 02:56:56 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBHvLTqllgE
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #278 on: June 28, 2014, 08:08:26 PM »









http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/06/the-week-in-pictures-video-edition.php
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #279 on: June 29, 2014, 10:45:25 AM »

Given her silent tolerance of Bill's many affairs, the irony here is biting  http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/28/raise-your-hand-if-you-think-this-is-the-last-billboard-hillary-clinton-wants-her-face-plastered-on/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #280 on: June 29, 2014, 11:32:56 AM »


Is there any chance that she has not already called the IRS commissioner's boss to get this company stopped?

I wonder if Bill envisions only marital fidelity when he thinks about the title of her book.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4198


« Reply #281 on: June 30, 2014, 07:46:15 AM »

Only one poll but most people still find Hildabeast can still "relate" to the ordinary "folk" (you know the little people):

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/poll-majority-believe-hillary-clinton-121327741.html

I wonder if the new book about the ongoing feud is just part of the strategy to separate Clinton from the Obamas.  The faux premise that she is much more moderate and can work with the other side.  We all know she is just as radical as Obama. 

Clinton only worked with the other side when his popularity sank and he got his tush handed to him in 1994.

Doug, I am not that expensive when it comes to dinner.  I hope I lose the lunch or at least the breakfast.  I don't mind paying for eggs benedict and champagne.  I would drink much myself if we could be finally rid of the two grifters.
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #282 on: July 01, 2014, 11:37:09 AM »

Popularity falling with no one else running.
Approval below 50%.
Book sales disappoint.
Book tour a disaster.
She is not very good at politics.
Questionable fire in belly.
Doesn't want to clean up O' messes.
People want real change.
People don't want more Clinton Bush.

Wash Times, Wes Pruden, today

Not to mention age and health issues x 2.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2014, 12:23:08 PM by DougMacG » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #283 on: July 01, 2014, 03:30:59 PM »

http://www.dickmorris.com/hillarys-goldman-sachs-money-grab-dick-morris-tv-lunch-alert/?utm_source=dmreports&utm_medium=dmreports&utm_campaign=dmreports
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4198


« Reply #284 on: July 02, 2014, 08:52:17 PM »

Let me ask the question.   How in the world can Hillary be even passed a "uniter" when every word out of her mouth pits one half of the country against the other half?   That is women against men!   She divides the electorate  and pits one group against another from the starting gates.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/images/v/blog_banner/blog_banner_logo.png
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #285 on: July 09, 2014, 09:20:54 AM »

This is back in the news because the NY Times took a month to get to it:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/us/08clinton.html

Also because liberals are out trying to defend her on this:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shepherd/2014/07/08/testy-joan-walsh-defends-hillary-clinton-rapist-defense-hardball
Joan Walsh, Salon:  "I'm sure she would take that laughter back."    Ya think?

The laughter is real, she is laughing about the whole thing, getting him off on time served, ha ha, even though she believes he was guilty of raping a 12 year old girl and destroying the rest of her life, ha ha.  She was asked to take the case and took it.  She was confronted with the story; she brought it up in the interview - bragging about her past work!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2f13f2awK4

While the laughter is real, the Arkansas accent is soooo phony.  She is from Chicago, lived later in Washington and got elected as Senator from New York.  Is this accent something you can turn on and off?  In her case, yes! More recently:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&feature=kp
« Last Edit: July 09, 2014, 09:23:01 AM by DougMacG » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #286 on: July 09, 2014, 09:58:11 AM »

Just another battle of the dem's war on women.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #287 on: July 09, 2014, 06:42:30 PM »

Hillary's Favorite Charity: Herself
By DICK MORRIS
Published on DickMorris.com on July 9, 2014

After an uproar about the exorbitant college speaking fees paid to Hillary Clinton -- $225,000 and up for each speech -- she suddenly announced that all of these fees "have been donated to the Clinton Foundation."

So in other words, she's donated the over-the top $1.8 million in fees to her favorite charity -- herself.  Is there really much difference between a fee paid directly to Hillary and one to the Bill Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation?  That's like moving money from one hand to the other.  It's not like Hillary's giving it away and losing control over it.  Because, without a doubt, she and her husband control the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation.  Is there anyone at all there who would ever say no to them?

No, they're calling the shots.

Hillary's generosity to the Foundation is a little different than other gifts.  Generally, when one makes a charitable contribution, it goes to an independent organization that spends it as it sees fit -- within the guidelines of the institution's goals.  Sometimes, a gift is earmarked for a certain project of the recipient. But that doesn't mean that the donor controls staff hiring, spending, and other expenses, such as travel and entertainment.

That's not the case at the Clinton Foundation, which is now the epicenter of Hillary's professional life and the launching pad for her likely presidential campaign.  In addition, the Foundation is one giant spoke in the many wheels of the Clintons' political and philanthropic fund-raising from overlapping donors.  The Foundation is a highly useful perch for Hillary.  She's installed her top former staff people and campaign aides on the foundation payroll, working on issues and scheduling her public speeches, recently estimated at hauling in $5 million since she left the State Department.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Clintons have raised between $2-3 billion in the past two decades, including $1 billion from American corporations.  The donations were to Bill and Hillary's political campaigns, various political advocacy organizations they support, the Clinton Presidential Library, and, of course, almost a billion dollars in contributions to the Foundation.

The Foundation provides other useful perks: It gives them the largesse to fund elaborate travel and parties for donor/friends, including one event where they reportedly purchased a first class plane ticket for Natalie Portman and her dog.  In 2012, the latest year available, the Foundation's travel expenses were $11,569,213 -- up about 10% from the $9,666,273 in 2011.  From 2000 - 2011, the Foundation spent over $50 million on travel!

Bill Clinton's travel alone was over a million dollars and accounted for more than 11% of the total.

And that didn't include the free travel that Bill and Hillary use most of the time, frequently asking for a donor to the Foundation for the free use of corporate jets, like supermarket billionaire John Catsimatidis, who frequently lends one of his fleet as an in-kind charitable contribution.

The Foundation also maintains the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, which includes a luxurious penthouse apartment for the exclusive use of Bill Clinton and family.  The apartment has rooms that are the exact replicas of the Oval Office, the State Dining Room, and the Oval Sitting Room.  It's where Bill frequently entertains -- on the Foundation.

That's not all.  The Foundation sponsors elaborate conferences and glamorous dinners that allow donors to hobnob with celebrities and rub elbows with Bill and Hillary.  Recently donors were invited to a week-end in London that included a musical and a special dinner with the Clintons.  All of this create a nice list of rich donors for a presidential candidate.

When Bill and Chelsea went to Africa for a week long trip in both 2012 and 2013, their entourage included VIP donors to The Foundation and a planeload of friendly journalists who dutifully reported gushing stories about the amazing Clintons.

It's a good way to develop a brand -- and its free!

The Foundation also spent over $26 million for meetings and conferences in 2011 and 2012.  Those, of course, are the perfect venue for Hillary to mingle with potential supporters and donors and showcase the policy positions and programs developed by the Foundation. And it gives the donors a chance to get chummy with a possible presidential candidate.

So it's a win-win situation for everyone.

Except for possible campaign opponents, who don't have the same ability and opportunity to raise billions of tax free dollars and leverage it to advance their campaigns.

So, when you're thinking about Hillary's generosity, remember where she's donating -- to herself!

But back to the student speaking fees.  Hillary, with her famous tin ear, actually claimed that the students at the University of Las Vegas who demanded that she return the $225,000 fee were not concerned about her fee!

Here's Hillary:

"They're not worried about my speaking or my household, they're worried about their own.  And that's the kind of debate I think I'm furthering as I go around the country speaking," she said of her critics."

Really?
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #288 on: July 11, 2014, 01:29:31 AM »

http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/03/26/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSN2540811420080326
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #289 on: July 18, 2014, 10:09:41 AM »

I saw Hillary making a politically astute move the other day.  She spoke in terms of being proud of America and that we have a great story to tell and that we just have to tell it.   Great way to appeal to every one who was offended by the Apology Tour and to subtly begin to separate herself from Obama's foreign policy.  Yes, yes I know it really was hers in great part and she stayed on board for it, but politically the theme looks to work well for her.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4198


« Reply #290 on: July 19, 2014, 08:51:39 AM »

"She spoke in terms of being proud of America and that we have a great story to tell and that we just have to tell it. "

And of course who better to tell it than her..... Sarcasm to the 10th degree!

I guess she has been listening to Glen Beck (the one of old), Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Marc Levin, Michael Savage, and many others on the right who have preached this throughout the progressive holocaust assault on America that has taken control of most of our media, Universities, unionized schools, and the entire Democrat party.

This is *classic* Clinton.  Steal the correct theme from the Right and act and promote it as though she discovered it and have her mafia organization now go all over the place promoting what they claim is her theme and the loving media will let her get away with it.  This is the classic Clinton way of infuriating us who know better.   (sadly it works for them)

The Right must NOT let her get away with this. ( However I know the Republican leadership does not have the savvy to do this)  She is a phony and a fraud.  All of us on this board know it.  Half the nation knows it.   Most on the left will always vote for her no matter what anyway.   Again it comes down to the minority who fall into the "some who can be fooled all of the time" (Lincoln of course).

 
« Last Edit: July 19, 2014, 10:01:35 AM by ccp » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #291 on: July 24, 2014, 04:46:31 PM »

http://pagesix.com/2014/07/21/the-secret-mistress-for-bill-that-agents-have-named-energizer/
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6085


« Reply #292 on: July 27, 2014, 05:40:07 PM »

"When smart diplomacy became a punchline."
http://www.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2014/07/26/as-libya-implodes-smart-diplomacy-becoming-a-punch-line/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #293 on: July 27, 2014, 08:57:24 PM »


Perhaps they just need a reset button...
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #294 on: July 31, 2014, 02:27:51 AM »

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/01/clinton-takes-aim-at-romneys-remarks-on-russia/?iref=allsearch
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #295 on: August 02, 2014, 01:30:03 AM »



http://washingtonexaminer.com/charge-clintons-turned-the-state-department-into-a-racket-to-line-their-own-pockets/article/2551448



Bill and Hillary Clinton are coming under fire today after State Department documents showed that officials rubber-stamped the former president’s expansive and sometimes high-priced overseas speaking engagements while his wife was in charge of foreign policy with many of those nations.

“These documents are a bombshell and show how the Clintons turned the State Department into a racket to line their own pockets,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. Judicial Watch and the Washington Examiner teamed to seek and publish those documents today.

“How the Obama State Department waived hundreds of ethical conflicts that allowed the Clintons and their businesses to accept money from foreign entities and corporations seeking influence boggles the mind,” said Fitton, adding, “That former President Clinton trotted the globe collecting huge speaking fees while his wife presided over U.S. foreign policy is an outrage."

The Examiner reported that the former president gave 215 speeches and earned $48 million while Hillary Clinton was at State.

The joint investigation also found Foggy Bottom didn’t object to a single proposed speech.

The duo’s income has become an issue in her burgeoning presidential campaign. They have a net worth of an estimated $80 million, with much of their bank account built on speech fees collected by Bill Clinton from venues around the world.

Said Judicial Watch:

    Mr. Clinton’s speeches included appearances in China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Central America, Europe, Turkey, Thailand, Taiwan, India and the Cayman Islands. Sponsors of the speeches included some of the world’s largest financial institutions — Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank, American Express and others — as well as major players in technology, energy, health care and media. Other speech sponsors included a car dealership, casino groups, hotel operators, retailers, real estate brokers, a Panamanian air cargo company and a sushi restaurant.

Editor's note: Judicial Watch is representing the Washington Examiner in the newspaper's federal lawsuit seeking access to Consumer Financial Protection Bureau records under FOIA.
Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2014, 01:34:42 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #296 on: August 13, 2014, 07:40:26 AM »

The Libs and Progs are going to have trouble with this , , , (see e.g. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/13/opinion/maureen-dowd-its-the-loyalty-stupid.html?emc=edit_th_20140813&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=49641193 )

The Message From That Hillary Interview
She would be the best-prepared president on foreign policy since George H.W. Bush.
By William A. Galston
Aug. 12, 2014 6:57 p.m. ET

Jeffrey Goldberg's interview in the Atlantic magazine with Hillary Clinton has made headlines, with good reason. Her critique of President Obama's Syria policy was pointed and persuasive, as was her assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood's missteps in Egypt.

But what lay beneath the headlines is far more important. The interview revealed a public servant instructed but not chastened by experience, with a clear view of America's role in the world and of the means needed to play that role successfully. If she entered the race and won, she would be better prepared to deal with foreign policy and national defense than any president since George H.W. Bush, whose judgment and experience helped end the Cold War and reunify Germany without a shot being fired.

Although Mrs. Clinton's tart remark that " 'Don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing principle" has evoked reams of commentary, the words that preceded it are far more important: "Great nations need organizing principles." The former secretary of state expressed enthusiasm for the role the U.S. played in defeating communism and fascism. The question since 1991 has been, what now?

During Bill Clinton's administration, the answer seemed clear enough: Build prosperity by incorporating the workers of Asia, Central Europe and the former Soviet Union into the global economy. The rising tide would create an expanding middle class, which would bolster new democracies and move authoritarian governments toward democracy. So the U.S. should take the lead in promoting open trade and peacefully advocating open government. The winds of history were in our sails.

Mrs. Clinton has thought hard about this, and here is what she told Mr. Goldberg: "The big mistake was thinking" that "the end of history has come upon us, after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was never true, history never stops and nationalisms were going to assert themselves, and then other variations on ideologies were going to claim their space." She cites jihadi Islamism and Vladimir Putin's vision of restored Russian greatness as prime examples. She might well have added China's distinctive combination of political authoritarianism and pell-mell economic growth ("market-Leninism"), which is seen elsewhere as an orderly alternative to democratic messiness.

The rise of violently aggressive anti-democratic ideologies was one rebuttal of the end-of-history theory. Another was the global economic crisis, discrediting the so-called Washington consensus that had dominated world affairs since the early 1990s. Central bankers, it turned out, were not wise enough to eliminate financial panics. Although too much regulation could stifle growth, too little could open the door to reckless risk-taking.

George W. Bush's response to jihadi Islam—global democracy-building backed by American might—came to grief in the sands of Iraq. But a policy built on avoiding that failure, says Mrs. Clinton in the Atlantic, runs risks of its own: "Part of the challenge is that our government too often has a tendency to swing between these extremes" of intervention and non-intervention. She adds: "When you're down on yourself, and when you are hunkering down and pulling back, you're not going to make any better decisions than when you were aggressively, belligerently putting yourself forward." If Mr. Bush's porridge was too hot, Mr. Obama's is too cold.

But moderation is a means to ends, not an end in itself. So what would be the ends, the animating purposes of Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy? Her interview suggests, first, that we must take the fight to jihadi Islamism, which is inherently expansionist. In that connection, she says, she is thinking a lot about "containment, deterrence, and defeat." When unarmed diplomacy cannot succeed, she adds, we should not be afraid to back "the hard men with guns."

Second, we should drive a tough deal with Iran, or none at all. "I've always been in the camp," Mrs. Clinton says, "that held that they did not have a right to enrichment. Contrary to their claim, there is no such thing as a right to enrich."

Third, we should distinguish clearly between groups we can work with and those we can't. For example, Mrs. Clinton would exclude Hamas on the grounds that it is virulently anti-Semitic and dedicated to Israel's destruction. She does not believe that Hamas "should in any way be treated as a legitimate interlocutor." Her commitment to Israel's defense is unswerving, including a willingness to call the rise of European anti-Semitism by its rightful name.

Fourth, the U.S. should vigorously advance the cause of women's rights around the world, not only because justice demands it, but also because the empowerment of women promotes economic growth and social progress.

And finally, because many American values "also happen to be universal values," we should take pride in ourselves and make our case to the world. Today, Mrs. Clinton says, "we don't even tell our story very well." As president, clearly, she would do her best to change that.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 07:51:34 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4198


« Reply #297 on: August 13, 2014, 08:16:34 AM »

"Mrs. Clinton has thought hard about this, and here is what she told Mr. Goldberg: "The big mistake was thinking" that "the end of history has come upon us, after the fall of the Soviet Union. That was never true, history never stops and nationalisms were going to assert themselves, and then other variations on ideologies were going to claim their space." She cites jihadi Islamism and Vladimir Putin's vision of restored Russian greatness as prime examples"

Does anyone who has a brain and who is old enough to know better really believe she is some kind of great thinker?

She is spoon fed all this stuff by liberal professors and other foreign policy experts who are hanging on for windfall.

Yes while trouble is increasing around the world the left who gave Bamster a free ride now will switch gears as Rush pointed out recently and the focus will shift to Hillary.

The Narcissistic one (not Bill or Hillary) the other one, will get increasingly indignant and bitter now that he will slowly fade from the limelight of those who put him on the pedestal.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31662


« Reply #298 on: August 13, 2014, 08:40:58 AM »



As I have been hammering for several years now, the Reps are utterly divided on foreign affairs and much of the core attitude that used to underlie Rep political strength on foreign affairs is gone.  With good reason the American people do not trust the competence of either party to lead this nation in war.  Which is a real big fg problem because it sure looks like a big war is coming!

Looked at through a political lens, Hillary's strategy is very interesting, potentially quite dangerous for us. 

Riddle me this:  How will the Reps respond to it?  More hawkish?  More Dovish?  How will each of the potential Rep nominees respond to it?  The American voter?  Given the American voter's well-earned distrust and looming war, is he/she likely to go for untested neophytes like Cruz or Paul? or Rubio? or?

(Oh and by the way, how does it square with what each of us thinks is best for American and the world?  This probably would be better answered in the Foreign Policy thread where I also posted it.)

Tangent:  I wonder why no one seems to note that Hillary's recent distancing from Baraq by pointing out that she, Petraeus, and Sec Def Paneta also supported arming the FSA in the early days of Syria, is also exactly what Sen. John McCain and Lindsay Graham advocated , , ,
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 08:51:38 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12124


« Reply #299 on: August 13, 2014, 08:53:11 AM »

Bottom line, we are fcuked.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!