• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exclusive: Secret tapes undermine Hillary Clinton on Libyan war[W:292]

Greetings, F&L. :2wave:

It's the "D" after the name that matters - character will be looked into later. I have posted many times that I just don't think her heart's in it, and I've felt she may not run. Oh, she'd like to be POTUS, of course, but right now - I just don't think so. I'm probably wrong, but that's my thinking, and I will eat crow if I'm not correct. She keeps better track of the polls than anyone else does, and she knows what's waiting in the background to greet her announcement. It's not good politically to have your ability doubted before you even take office!

What I know from my own studies and grape vine, is that she has a huge war chest. She has an even bigger PDF, political debt file, what she is owed, and a long, long list of "enemies"....there are a lot of resentments still over '08, where the Clintons were "enemied" by Obama; all the race card stuff etc.

The word is that neither she nor Bill are in top shape physically, she is having a very hard time getting her weight down. It is said the campaign is moribund. Observers here, some of whom work for the Democrats as volunteers [which you need to make illegal NOW...allowing foreigners to help influence the vote,...] and they say the campaign is out of touch, her campaign theme is nearly 50 years old, her audiences mean age in the 40's.

I also know she has been campaigning for seven years, full time for three; she has become a full time professional campaigner., her CV consists of being the estranged wife of a governor then president, and seasoned traveler. And we know that the demographics have shifted to the lower number.

And the political landscape has shifted. She did not fair well in her "audition" as Secretary of State, she was weak on foreign policy before, and now has serious question marks about her ability and honesty.

The Gruber Low Information Voter cuts two ways. Where the D's are championing her "escape" from Benghazi hell, now there are headlines about other 'stuff' and question marks in her term as SC, AND now a clear example of the lost ground to terrorists and the destabilization of Egypt, Libya, Iraq, Syria et al under her watch.

If she runs, the nomination will be a coronation. But I do not think she has the stamina nor thick enough skin to face what will come at her. Obama in eight years has upped the ante, where "harsh" was the norm in US character assassination politics, 'cruelty and abuse' have replaced it. Watch for the Republicans to bring up Obama's people's charges of racism against her...me, I would be asking "why elect a woman who can't keep her man at home?" and other very cruel destructive questions that have nothing to do with any issues, just as the Obama camp has played. And I would also be sure to and bag her like the "47%" tape on Romney, only often and hard.

I was once told by a Canadian master, a Francophone MP and Senator who had survived decades as a Liberal is that "politics is how we replaced warring to be leader. It is as cruel, perhaps more because it is bloodless. If is not, cruel, you are not in politics'

The D's are just beginning to realize what they have wrought.
 
The left can't debate the issues-they will lose and know that. They seek to win through rhetoric, spin, attacks, derailment, etc.
This of course is no different-because it can't be.

True, the left looses because their interest is in party preservation, not American exceptionalism. Not unlike the way the right fails in their argument that the Iraq war was some success, despite the fact that an NIE produced while Bush was yet president declared that the invasion of Iraq was an impetus to terrorism, Islamic extremism and left America less safe, because like their partisan cousins on the left, their motive is party perpetuation rather than American exceptionalism.
 
I bet you think Hillary was telling the truth when she claimed that she dodged sniper fire in Bosnia....and that daughter Chelsea was jogging around the wtc towers when the jets hit them on 9/11/01.......and that Hillary and Bill were dead broke when they left the white house.
How much?
 
Ohhh now I see where this is going. This investigation that has found nothing in the past years, are now turning the page and instead not the attack itself, but now reasons for bombing Libya. Funny how they moved the goalposts. I guess this is the first time that Republicans are against dropping bombs on a country...

Kind of hard to nail down such crimes when the white house, the justice department, and Hillery Clinton have stonewalled the investigations from the start. Previous administrations....even run by Hillary's husband bill at least allowed the appointment of a special prosecuter and somewhat cooperated with the investigations. The Obama administration tactic is just to stonewall and wait it out and hope it goes away just like "Fast and Furious". Personally I have two issues in regards to Benghazi. One is: Why did the administration initially refuse to accept that the attack and murder our our ambassasdor was a terrorist attack. And why did the administration rush to blame the attack on an obscure youtube video? Considering the fact that Hillary wants to run for president, I think the voters are entitled to straight answers including Hillary's involvement.
 
Thanks for providing the source.

I posted it once in this thread already. If you really want to see it, go back and find it or easier, google it yourself. Really though, you're not going to care that the governments own conclusions, put into an NIE report are that the invasion of Iraq fuelled Islamic extremism, and terrorism, and made the US less safe, because of your history of support of that folly.
 
The left can't debate the issues-they will lose and know that. They seek to win through rhetoric, spin, attacks, derailment, etc.
This of course is no different-because it can't be.

Precisely.

Anything BUT the core topic.....

and anything but facts, opinion cited as facts.

The number one sentence I have typed in forums is "Please provide a source"

The number one response: "I posted it already, find it yourself"

I need to go have a long laugh now
 
And I think President Bush should have met with Cindy Sheehan.

That would have been beneath the dignity of the executive office considering that Cindy Sheehan was a member of the extremist organization known as "Code Pink". It would have been more about that organization then what happened to her son.
 
How much?

Never mind how much. If you don't buy Hillary's comments regarding Bosnia, the WTC, and dead broke when leaving the white house, then I think it's safe to say that you are not all that sold on Hillary's credibility.
 
Precisely.

Anything BUT the core topic.....

and anything but facts, opinion cited as facts.

The number one sentence I have typed in forums is "Please provide a source"

The number one response: "I posted it already, find it yourself"

I need to go have a long laugh now

Lol, you and USC really need a bedroom.
 
Kind of hard to nail down such crimes when the white house, the justice department, and Hillery Clinton have stonewalled the investigations from the start. Previous administrations....even run by Hillary's husband bill at least allowed the appointment of a special prosecuter and somewhat cooperated with the investigations. The Obama administration tactic is just to stonewall and wait it out and hope it goes away just like "Fast and Furious". Personally I have two issues in regards to Benghazi. One is: Why did the administration initially refuse to accept that the attack and murder our our ambassasdor was a terrorist attack. And why did the administration rush to blame the attack on an obscure youtube video? Considering the fact that Hillary wants to run for president, I think the voters are entitled to straight answers including Hillary's involvement.


I agree except for the bold. They do not ever sit back and wait.

Obama's is offense oriented administration, they do not wait to be attacked. Obama strutted into the Oval Office gloating over his divisive "Guns and Bibles" comment and immediately labelled all Republicans "enemies".

That, in anyone's book is not a Reagan nor Clintonesque move to get things done, but a declaration of war which has now been waged for seven harsh years.

The first response of the Obama administration is to diminish of not dismiss, "I saw it on TV", and then to ridicule and sneer. How many times did we see that little worm of a press secretary sneering at reporter's questions, dismissing issues as "old news", which by the way does not exist...not in Obamaland as the next step in any issue is to rewrite history, blame Bush/Romney/Palin/McCain/Herman Cain/Bush or Ronald Reagan; if not blame then to remind Americans that Republicans are imperfect, a distraction from the fact they are admitting Obama is no better than their worst.

Amid that, you have personal attacks as in Republican Senators are clowns BECAUSE they want to know what's behind the IRS spying on Republicans. Then you have character assassination, attacking the messenger, undermining any probe with deflective irrelevancies such as "a spontaneous demonstration over a tape made ridiculing the prophet Mohamed...in tones that makes that wrong. Now forgetting they have trampled on the first amendment, we have to see that for what it is. A gross lie. And, if anywhere near correct, is an example of the incompetence of the American Intelligence community on which the nation relies to keep them safe.

Four Americans died, nine were injured, and the debate they have is that it's old news, Hillary is clean...trying so far, successfully, to divert attention that the Obama White House has not brought those Islamic terrorists to justice, that a mob of several dozen Islamic fanatics roam the middle east bragging they drew blood off "the great Satan" and lived to tell about it. What Americans need to focus on is not Obama and his minions and their incredible lies, but that. Each one of those Islamic blood sucker murderers represents a hundred, at least, new recruits to Islamic terror that wants to destroy the American way of life.
 
Yes......I think Hillary and NBC anchor Brian Williams have much in common.

They both made up stories to make themselves look heroic. I heard Mrs. Clinton on tape explaining that when she made her claim about having come under fire overseas, she was suffering from lack of sleep. "I misspoke," she said. Some wag then remarked that she must also have been sleepy and misspoken all those times she repeated her self-serving tale to different audiences.
 
They both made up stories to make themselves look heroic. I heard Mrs. Clinton on tape explaining that when she made her claim about having come under fire overseas, she was suffering from lack of sleep. "I misspoke," she said. Some wag then remarked that she must also have been sleepy and misspoken all those times she repeated her self-serving tale to different audiences.

I got four different accounts and I thought Billary made that excuse not her
 
I got four different accounts and I thought Billary made that excuse not her

No, I saw her make that "sleep deprivation, I misspoke" excuse in response to an interview question. That is not the only thing she has lied about--like President Pinocchio, she is a practiced, habitual liar.
 
Good reason to destablilize it more ....
Essentially, yes.

I love the rational of the Obama apologists....forgetting that he claims to be making things better....like how Arab Spring was going to bring peace, prosperity and utopia
Are you saying I'm an "Obama apologist"? You know I disagree with us getting involved in peoples civil wars... You miss that post? Also I was simply pointing out that its false to say that Hilary Clinton caused the destabilization of Libya. It was destabilized before...
 
No, I saw her make that "sleep deprivation, I misspoke" excuse in response to an interview question. That is not the only thing she has lied about--like President Pinocchio, she is a practiced, habitual liar.

When you say president Pinocchio, do you refer to Bush or Clinton?

Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war
Study: Bush, aides made 935 false statements in run-up to war - CNN.com

FACT CHECK: TOP TEN CLINTON DNC FALSEHOODS
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2012/09/06/fact-check-top-ten-clinton-lies/
 
We can only imagine what GOP posters and politicians would be saying if a Marine barracks situation occurred today.
Let alone another 9/11.

I know what Obama would say, " It isn't an existential threat."

Fore!
 
Essentially, yes.


Are you saying I'm an "Obama apologist"? You know I disagree with us getting involved in peoples civil wars... You miss that post? Also I was simply pointing out that its false to say that Hilary Clinton caused the destabilization of Libya. It was destabilized before...

Absolute historical fact. And the civilian population was indeed suffering, though genocide was inappropriate characterisation. There was no evidence of Gaddafi targeting civilians. But if civilian casualties caught in the crossfire between a government attempting to perpetuate themselves in clashes with extremists attempting to overthrow them, is to be called genocide, then we have a big problem in a lot of places. Where the Obama administration is culpable is in abusing the UN resolution for the use of force that was reluctantly supported by Russia and China to protect these civilians in eastern Libya, mostly, and expanding the operation to regime change (a US foreign policy goal that predates Obama by the way) and what got the US in trouble with Russia and China. You should recall that on the heels of the commencement of US/NATO operations we heard immediate outcries from Lavrov that the targeting was consistent with regime change. This is precisely what then led to both Russia and China vetoing every single one of Hilary's attempts to secure a resolution for the use of force in Syria. This is what happens when you go about advancing your interests in such ways, all the while pointing fingers at others. Kinda like we're doing with Russia right now.
 
Essentially, yes.


Are you saying I'm an "Obama apologist"? You know I disagree with us getting involved in peoples civil wars... You miss that post? Also I was simply pointing out that its false to say that Hilary Clinton caused the destabilization of Libya. It was destabilized before...


Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died."

Hillary seems rather giddy about her accomplishment.



Still think Obama didn't support the Arab Spring?

Think Hillary was able to keep it a secret from him?
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064289786 said:
Hillary Clinton on Gaddafi, "We came, we saw, he died."

Hillary seems rather giddy about her accomplishment.



Still think Obama didn't support the Arab Spring?

Think Hillary was able to keep it a secret from him?


:lamo You still like to deny basic facts dont you?
secbav.png
 
They both made up stories to make themselves look heroic. I heard Mrs. Clinton on tape explaining that when she made her claim about having come under fire overseas, she was suffering from lack of sleep. "I misspoke," she said. Some wag then remarked that she must also have been sleepy and misspoken all those times she repeated her self-serving tale to different audiences.

I heard the lack of sleep response as well. I don't think it's going to help her during the 2016 campaign.
 
:lamo You still like to deny basic facts dont you?
secbav.png

During a meeting with members of the NATO-rebels’ TNC in Libya on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington wants to see Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi captured or killed.

Keith Harmon Snow, a war correspondent and independent investigator, says that killing Gaddafi would be an illegal targeted assassination and that there is obviously a hidden agenda behind Hillary Clinton’s apparently spontaneous visit.

“There is a lot of fighting in Libya at present and almost everything we’ve been told, everything we’ve seen, is false. We are getting just a complete propaganda story of what’s going on in Libya,” he says.

“Why is she there? Clearly to make it look to the American public like the U.S. is in absolute control of Libya. Cover up the atrocities, put a white, clean, shiny, happy, lovely face on the death and destruction.”

- See more at: HILLARY CLINTON: U.S. WANTS GADDAFI CAPTURED OR KILLED | VOICE OF DETROIT: The city's independent newspaper, unbossed and unbought

Republicans liberate nations from oppressive regimes and they are evil. Democrats do it and they are Hillary. Enough said...
 
Yadda yadda yadda, yea, OK, Hillary is NOT incompetent, because she was just following an incompetent policy.

Time to put on the big boy pants and tell me WHO made and is responsible for the incompetent policy in Benghazi?!?!? Anyone anyone, Bueller, Bueller, Gruber, Gruber?
 
Back
Top Bottom