If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Great news for the Clintons, bad news for the United States. Has it ever occurred to you in, say, the last i dunno, 15 years that the Clintons do whatever is best for them, and not the country? The Clintons will undermine Obama at almost every turn. To think that she has lied thousands of times in the face of the public to bolster her praisworthiness (for example, that she was named after Edmund Hillary, fird upon by snipers in Bosnia (not once but twice asserted after being corrected on her mistake), ad nauseum).
Do you realize she has ringing endorsements from NeoConservatives? Shouldn't that give you pause, maybe, and ask, "if the people who got us into this mess are praising her...what does this mean about her qualifications?"
The link you posted illustrates that she changes her position to the degree that it will keep her in the positive, in power, and in control. She was for the Iraq war until she decided it was politically a bad idea to continue supporting it, then switched. The article clarifies, though implicitly, that she's clearly more hawkish than Obama.
Her anti-missile defense position is also worrisome, too, given that european countries may rely on that very technology against a pre-emptive Russian attack.
And she should not be trusted to even talk to the Chinese. She has so many conflicts-of-interests it isn't even funny. All sorts of fundraising from that country; will she serve the United States or the Chinese donors?
Just too many godddamn question marks over her head. Not a sign of principled leadership, not a sign of necessary foreign policy experience (after all, her main focus was, up until very recently, on domestic issues).
This to me seems more along the lines of the Palin fiasco, though less serious.
Yet, I think Hitchens waxes poetic so much better than me.
In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me.
It was apt in a small way that the first endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been Henry Kissinger. The last time he...
you could put an Emfire release on for 2 minutes and you would be a sleep before it finishes - Chunky
it's RA. they'd blow their load all over some stupid 20 minute loop of a snare if it had a quirky flange setting. - Tiddles
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment