Can we just get over this best eva since the dawn of time SoS?

Mrs Clinton may speechify about how she cares about women and children but she is a hawk, we should all realize that. The women and children of Iraq don't believe how much she cared for them when she voted for war and when her husband cruelly sanctioned their country for his two entire terms, and now when she pressed to get into another possible ugly scenario in Syria, partnering up with a repuglican Petraeus and his little friends the Kagans (who Hillary also knew). The Kagans were telling the General how to run the Afghan war. And Pat and Hill were trying to telling Obama how to run the Syrian matter.

I just pray pray pray that when women are to be fully accepted for combat duty that if if if Hillary does get the nod in '16 (my bowels just loosened) that it's not mistaken for some women's battle cry to prove they are 'just as tough as men' and what way to prove it but enlist to serve a woman president. o, o...... I weep.

What exactly are her accomplishments? I don't know. She flew a lot, and got tired a lot. But you can't tell me that is a tired compared to the working poor and how freaking tired they are working 2 or 3 jobs, kids to look after. So spare me the Tired! please.

And when the biggest (well I guess Keystone is a big one too and she wants that one bad for her friends) thing happens, Benghazi, what does she do? She says she is too tired (I did hear this on one news show, that that was the reason Rice stood in for her). So when that phone call comes in at 3:00am, what does Hillary do? She asks Rice to pick it up.

She did well in the GOP interrogation about Benghazi as she had plenty of time to prepare - and they all prepare for that sort of grilling no matter who it is. She did not want to go on those first talkie shows because she was not going to be prepared. She is not good at winging it without making some really awful mistakes. So she ducked it. She was too tired was the reason they gave on that news show.

zzzZZZzzz
--Hillary---
**2016**
-----------

this frustration and spleen rending is not directed at the OP! sorry about that, re-reading it it sounded like I was yelling at You.

billions from our Federal funds for their private for profit Gov. contracts businesses.

War is money, personal profits from Federal funds- for a lot of our elected,their families and friends.

it and determined that it wouldn't have been decisive because they already had lots of weapons from the Saudis & Qatar. So what was the damn point other then getting us more wrapped up in the mess.

Frankly, this is why Obama won the nomination on 2008. This is the judgment Democrats wanted (I sure did). I'm glad to see it in action. Obama always ran on focusing on nailing (killing) the terrorists & avoiding foreign entanglements when we don't have UN & area (Arab League) support ala Libya.

John McCain would have us in a bunch of new wars already. Earth to McCain ~ the American People don't want that crap.

I didn't watch it, but I intend to when I find some time later.

As for McCain, I think almost everyone, even those who voted for him, knew the man was a neocon stooge from the get go.

Is the nick for the band?

In the meantime, the world will just watch Syria become another Rwanda.

Last edited Tue Feb 12, 2013, 12:17 PM - Edit history (1)

Obama is no more shy about using military force as his predecessor. So he didn't go along with arming the rebels in Syria. Instead, he continued Bush's drone program and enhanced it (although there have been drones since the Reagan era, they didn't have the capabilities that they have now). Not a very "progressive" move, if you ask me.

I read your diatribe up-thread, but chose not to comment. More than fact, it was about your opinion and your intense dislike of the Clintons.

In future, please refrain from responding to me.

Ciao.......

So my opinions bothered you so much about how I view Hillary's view of war that in your excitement you ask me to calm down. okay. ....

You have not contributed anything to refute what I said except resort to 'Obama is worse that Bush' bullshit that I've been hearing for fricken years here now from you and others that can't think of anything else to say when you are cornered with some harsh realities.

zzzZZZzzz Hillitary in '06! zzzZZZzzz

Before you go you might want to pass that onto the Clinton's for their '06 slogan.

You believe what you want to believe. If I chose not to refute several points from your first post, it's because there's no sense in wasting my time. You have convinced yourself that the Clintons are evil. Therefore, there's no point in my pointing out to you that there are several factual mistakes in what you wrote. For instance, Hillary never sent Susan Rice to appear on the Sunday morning shows. She simply chose no to do the rounds herself. The WH sent Rice and also provided her with the talking points that later on were found out not to be factual.

As for Obama, I never said (nor I believe) that he is worse than Bush. But, he has continued some of Bush policies when it comes to national security.

Here's further proof, Cheney approves of Obama's drone policies. If that's not the kiss of death, I don't know what is.

"Dick Cheney: Obama Drone Program Is 'A Good Policy'

WASHINGTON — Former Vice President Dick Cheney says the Obama administration's policy of targeting terrorists abroad with unmanned drone strikes is "a good policy," even though he disagrees with most of President Barack Obama's views on national security."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/dick-cheney-obama-drone_n_2668511.html

is exactly for the reaction you just gave.

I'm sure he thanks you for playing.

The better analogue for drones is using planes to bomb targets -- you know, like Clinton did as a limited reaction to Iraq in 1998.

those that are completely pacifists have the right to attack the drones, but if you support bombings by planes with pilots or using special forces, it is pretty hypocritical. Hillary is clearly more a hawk than Obama.

It was not about using planes with pilots or using forces on the ground. Separate issues altogether.

The opponents of the Bush administration’s possible military action against Iraq make the following arguments: “He’s simply trying to finish the job his father started”; “No blood for oil”; “Iraq poses no imminent threat”; “Wars kill innocent women and children”; “Allow the United Nations inspections to proceed”; “Containment works”; “Avoid unilateralism, and proceed only with the United Nations’ approval”; and the all-encompassing “No smoking gun exists demonstrating that Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction.”
Ads by Google

But Bill Clinton, four years ago, took to the airwaves and explained his authorization of non-U.N.-approved missile strikes against Iraq, using the very same arguments now advanced by President Bush. Yet the silence was deafening.

---
http://www.wnd.com/2003/02/17376/
reputable source? I don't know. Believable, yes, very.

There was no good solution here. Do you really want a replay of arming violent people - whether the Mujahadeim or the Contras? If there were not a NYT account saying HRC backed this, would you be advocating for it?

No one wants another war, but when does it become a moral obligation to intervene? Singing kumbaya and closing one's eyes does not make the horror go away.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/syria-children-war-video_n_2678923.html

While some of you continue to pat Obama on the back for going against his entire security team, more people are dying.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — Syria's intensifying civil war has probably killed over 9,000 people since the beginning of the year, bringing the likely death toll of the two-year-old conflict near 70,000, the U.N. human rights chief said Tuesday.

At the beginning of January, less than six weeks ago, Navi Pillay said the death toll in Syria had exceeded 60,000, a figure she called "truly shocking" and much higher than the U.N. expected. That figure was a third higher than estimates by anti-regime activists at the time.

Opening a speech to a U.N. Security Council meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, Pillay recalled her announcement of 60,000 deaths in Syria and told members: "That figure is probably now approaching 70,000."

She strongly criticized the U.N.'s most powerful body for its failure to end the killings.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/syria-death-toll-un-70000_n_2670540.html

that was done by the U.S. for purely humanitarian purposes?

how about when was the last time this was done -whatever the intentions were- and it didn't turn out so well either for american soldiers or for the populace of the nation to be 'saved' ?

I'm not being snarky, I am asking sincerely.