Who wasnt even a Senator then. It was George Herbert Walker Bush. And the UN Security Council. Including Russia, China, France, and the UK. AND ten non-permanent members. Fifteen fucking nations.
Blaming Hillary is beyond ludicrous, it’s farcical.
I’m sorry, this is relevant how?
On the other hand, some people are saying that she’s the one who shot Old Yeller. I think I heard about it on Fox News.
It was a joking response to the previous post (about the number of deaths under GW). I’ll add the 
next time.
And, wasn’t it she on the Grassy Knoll??? hmmm.
(Of course Trump is a Gassy Gnoll, so…)
Hillary broke up the Beatles!
As will I
The shit that gets me is when the right utterly CONDEMNS her for something someone on their side did as well. And if it gets pointed out, they excuse their guy’s actions left and right but that same excuse doesn’t apply to Hillary. Like voting for the war in Iraq. Drumpf’s interview on 60 Minutes sums it up.
And I saw another interview, which for the life of me I can not track down again, with some…guy lol All I remember is he was African American. And he’s basically saying that the fact that Bill Clinton had an affair makes Hillary a worse person that Drumpf, who actually had affairs himself. Because, well the bible says people give in to temptations. Or something along those lines. Basically my point is, they so very obviously hold her to some different standard than their own party members, it’s hard to take anything they say seriously as it just comes off as them hating Hillary because she’s Hillary.
Ok I found the interview I was talking about. It was with Pastor Mark Burns. Also through the Daily Show, so take that how you will. But I thought it was a good example of why people don’t take things they say about her seriously.
She just might. I remember candidate Obama talking about respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty, as in stopping with the drone strikes. But after he became POTUS somebody sat him down and told him what was really going on there. Since that time, Obama has rained down a lot more death from above than GWB did (in terms of drone strikes). He also sent the Navy SEALS in although it was for a very good cause. But fighter aircraft were standing by to shoot down Pakistani jets over their own country for the crime of defending their airspace against foreign military invaders. So much for that sovereignty.
Nonetheless, drones aren’t going away. Neither are all those NSA capabilities that allow them to know the color and texture of your next poop before you take it. These things are way too useful and the best anyone can hope for is a president who uses such powers with discretion. When it comes to Hillary versus Trump I know which one I’d choose.
Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton’s State Department
“An investigation finds that countries that gave to the foundation saw an increase in State Department-approved arms sales.”
And before you say “it’s for charity”, actually the Clinton foundation gives very little to charity and spends a lot on expenses. Still corrupt as she is, she’s better than Trump.
I might need a bit of substantiation, here. Yeah, pretty sure I do.
Really? You remember that? Because what I remember was candidate Obama taking a lot of flack for saying this -
I have frequently admired Ma Jones’ investigative reporting, this will not go down in their Greatest Hits Collection. A $10 million dollar donation from Saudi had some major impact on US arms sales to Saudi? Pull the other one, its got bells, pull the middle one, I’ll give you a nickel.
There’s one fuck of a lot of political power and intrigue that goes into what we sell to Saudi, and what we don’t. $10 million is a lot of money, but on that scale, its trivial.
And if suddenly Hillary was demanding a rise in arms sales to Saudi, or anyplace else for that matter, questions will be asked. Some of them by her boss. The President. Who will then, most likely, proceed as he had already determined.
And, of course, just because something happened after something else, doesn’t mean a cause and effect. There’s a Latin thing for that, even got an “ergo” in it.
You have been misled.
I’m prepared to admit I’m wrong on this one. I’ve found references to the SEALS having to fight their way out but I can’t find anything about fighter coverage. I could have sworn.
That was specifically referring to OBL though. There’s so much out there about Obama and drone strikes. The best I could find is Politifact from 2008 rating John McCain’s accusation that Obama wanted to “bomb Pakistan” as pants-on-fire. And since then there have indeed been a lot of pants on fire… in Pakistan.
I remember watching the lead in to a Fox News program which basically was, “People aren’t taking her email fiasco seriously…WHY? PEOPLE WE NEED TO TAKE WHAT SHE DID WITH HER EMAILS SERIOUSLY”
No, not really. That 89 percent included travel and salary expenses for their own programs which are usually regarded as “admin” costs not charitable giving when rating other charities. Here’s another sites assessment:
At the very least it’s poor judgement to still be connected to this type of foundation while in office as secretary of state. IMO The Clinton foundation should have been put in suspension when Hilary got back into office. Save the international charity work for EX-Presidents, something which Hillary is not yet…
Anyway, corrupt as she is, she’s still better than Trump.
You recite that as if it’s liturgy. You’re wrong. You have no facts.