According to the Enquirer’s front page, Hitlery’s got a $25m tell-all autobio coming out. I don’t know what’s in it, but I’ll hop out on a limb and say that she’s poisoning her own well because she plans to run. By 2016 Benghazi will be ancient history and so will any juicy tidbits in her book, and her opponents can’t get any traction with what people consider old news. shrug I’d vote for her if Biden doesn’t run.
What extra-moronic Pit thread are you talking about? I mean there’s my super-extra-duper-stupid thread, but as per request I dropped that one.
Ouch. I will admit that I am conservative and have been concerned about the multiple screwups in how the attack was responded to, how the administration talked about it and how people that contestedthe “official” version of events were treated.
However, what I am most concerned about now is that the OP might accidentally be considered a reasonable representative of the conservative membership of this board. Good god. I’m currently taking Norco 10/325 for pain because of surgery I had yesterday and I still can generate a more coherent thought.
I am ashamed that not only is the OP a conservative but that he is apparently a member of the same species as me.
The thing that will screw up Hillary’s campaign will be the same thing that’s hung over her head for a long time: her hawkishness. She’s Joe Lieberman with more name recognition and a bigger following.
All it will take to upend her will be for an insurgent Democrat who is more liberal to get a lot of attention.
Well, maybe he was beat from clearing all that mesquite.
Wait, no, that was the other one, wasn’t it ?
As somebody already noted, we all blame it on his TIGHT ASS JOCKEY SHORTS.
I’m sorry, but I really, really cannot take any political opinion of yours seriously after your predictive showing at the last election.
Does that mean most of this board will be discredited the next time Republicans win an election? Interesting.
Upon our harrowing defeat by the GOP, we’ll all run off with our tail between our legs, chugging Thunderbird to drown our sorrows, and cry bitter tears over the ascendancy of family values, the demise of global warming, the hatred of science, and the proclaiming the love of Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to unborn fetuses.
Your rapier wit has wounded us deeply and…we shall never recover.
I suppose I could just look at the Nov. 2004 archives for a taste of the board liberals’ predictive prowess.
Nothing so drastic, merely the Sign that the End Times are upon us.
Well, let’s start with sweeping 2009 and then capturing the Senate in 2014. Would anyone care to make a prediction for this year? I see there’s a competitive race in Virginia plus a Massachusetts Senate race that’s much more competitive than it has any right to be.
Addy, mah man, don’t go there. Even I felt badly for you after the last election. I’m glad you’re back, but sheesh, were you ever so epically wrong, and so confident you were right.
You are correct about Hillary’s hawkishness, but that won’t sink her. A few months ago, I said she wouldn’t run. Now I think she will, and if she does, she will win. I think the only Democrats who will run against Hillary are those trying to build name recognition for 2020 or 2024, not win in 2016. Anyone who believes they will have a chance against Hillary in 2016, Democrat or Republican, is smoking some good ganja.
Wasn’t that said in 2008? I don’t know, she just runs too carefully, too conventionally, with every moment carefully scripted. That’ll work just so long as there’s no Obama, or even a Howard Dean, waiting in the wings.
I’m not a Hillary fan precisely because of the aforementioned hawkishness and I don’t think the Presidency is the right for for her. I was much happier to see her in the SoS role, which suited her personality and skill set much better. Would I vote for her if she runs? That all depends on who the alternative is. The current state of the GOP suggests that ideologically-pure idiocy will continue for the foreseeable future, so it’ll be down to who challenges her in the primaries. Not a Biden fan either, so we’ll just have to see.
But given that the whole Benghazi thing only has traction amongst those who would never vote for her in the first place, I doubt that’ll be the issue that sinks her should she get sunk.
That depends on what else comes out, of course. As they say, it’s not the crime, it’s the cover up. For some reason the administration really doesn’t want anyone involved with what went down talking to Congress.
I just wanted to thank the OP for the descriptive thread title. It was a very clever way of informing me that reading this thread would be a complete waste of my time.
[QUOTE=Slypork]
However, what I am most concerned about now is that the OP might accidentally be considered a reasonable representative of the conservative membership of this board.
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, I can tell the difference. I got into a long, painful argument with this crazy fundamentalist on Facebook yesterday (who thought Obama was a part of the Muslim Brotherhood), and it made me long for Straight Dope conservatives. I will never take you for granted again.
ETA: Best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Daring to go back to the topic of the Benghazi attack…
ABCNews.com is reporting they have reviewed several emails showing State Department input in the editing of the talking points which were originally drafted by the intelligence community.
The email trail shows State Department spokesperson Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to inclusion of certain details. The talking points were re-drafted by the intelligence community but again Nuland raised objections.
According to the ABCNews.com “These changes don’t resolve all of my issues or those of my buildings leadership,” Nuland wrote. Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department’s concerns needed to be addressed.
“We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don’t want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.”
Ben Rhodes, as a Deputy National Security Advisor, is a part of the White House staff.
Victoria Nuland’s role as the spokesperson for the State Department places her as a senior official in the department that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was ultimately responsible for at the time of the Benghazi attacks.
It appears to me that high level officials in the White House and State Department were involved in substantially editing the content of the intelligence community’s assessment of the Benghazi attacks prior to Ambassador Rice’s appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows. This is in contradiction to statements made by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney that the “the only edits made by anyone here at the White House were stylistic and nonsubstantive.”
My concern about the State Department and White House actions is not so much about the incident happening. There is a finite amount of resources available for diplomatic security and there are no guarantees that an attack will not occur at an unexpected place.
Rather my concern is whether politics can be set aside long enough to critically examine this incident and what intelligence was available prior to the incident with a view towards preventing future attacks. To the extent that high level officials of the State Department seem to be involved in publicly downplaying the available intelligence information I am concerned that Hillary Clinton is placed, through direct action or negligent oversight, politics above duty to the mission to the detriment of United States’ interests in its diplomatic missions abroad. And for that she should be held accountable.
However I have little faith in the American public’s ability or appetite to look beyond the latest shiny distraction or smoke screen put forth by partisans on both sides. I think such politicizing of this issue works to Clinton’s favor as the American public will tend to become fatigued over this issue and no longer pay close attention. And for that reason I do not think Clinton’s actions (or inactions) in relation to this matter will substantially affect her chances in 2016 should she choose to run.
Who do you believe should have testified that has not?
Not so much, IIRC. She was a front-runner to be sure, but at that point we didn’t have a non-republican administration to buffer her from her husbands administration. The idea of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton was very depressing to may voters.
Add to that, she had her Senatorial experience but that didn’t keep her in the public eye as much as being Secretary of State has done.
On the other hand, pretty much every Democratic candidate for President who has won in the past 40 years has come out of nowhere.