If memory serves, she was a huge proponent of invading Iraq. Your criticism of the hawks seems, well, quite selective, does it not?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your memory fails you. Perhaps you never understood it to begin with?

Again, an insult with no facts, shocker. You're saying I'm wrong that supported the invasion?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

True: Russia, China, Iran, and Israel are all reported to have accessed her illegal server. Of those four, Israel is the only one that would consider us friendly, no matter how poor relations had gotten over the past 8 years*. I would also guess that they were both grinning ear to ear (friendly nation states do spy on friendly nation states) alternating with a lot of WTFs.

Suspected of having some access and for having told US Intelligence groups: Germany, UK, and a few other countries. I would assume Israeli contacts would say the same thing off the record to US intelligence folks over a beer.

Other reports (harder to verify) have it that the entire contents of her server - more than what the the FBI and State have - are available for sale on the darkweb.





* Currently reading Bob Gates: DUTY

Don't you remember? She voted for it before she didn't vote for it.

Again - reading Gates: Duty (interesting book BTW) in a meeting with Obama and Hillary, they both admited to their stances on Iraq in the initial invasion and for Hillary, the Surge, as being political votes to keep happiness in their party, above the best interests of the country.

Personally - too many politicians from both sides play that game, putting our kids at risk for political gain. Just because politicians have been doing it for thousands of years does not make it right.

I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq."

She certainly voted to authorize the use of force, but that bill was conditional on a failure of inspections and sanctions which were working to the disappointment of the Administration. Clinton also said clearly that she didn't feel that the US invading without a proper coalition was justified.

If anything her vote was to make an invasion more difficult.

The IAEA inspections were working? There was some agreement on the status of atomic research by the Iraqis but not on Chem or Bio, where they were being stonewalled.

There was certainly stonewalling on inspections but the IAEA said they could get the job done if given time. The sanctions absolutely were working...

That why they couldn't put it up for another UN vote, they couldn't make the case.

wow...that's an impressive steaming pile :rotf2:

Maybe Bush just needed to draw a red line in the sand .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump hasn't done anything yet. Hilary has.

So much for innocent until proven guilty .. and thats the issue your all ready convinced like Benghazi reguardless of the evidence presented

but you'll trust the DOJ with Waterboardering approval but anything less than hang her from the DOJ ion email and its Fixed :huh:

the new defense of the 21 or so Benghazi hearing and investigations is

Well we found out about the email server ..

thats like investigating someone for for murder and not getting a conviction but finding out they are stealing cable and hold that up as a success spending millions of dollars for a cable crime that may or may not be a punishable under the law

No, it is not like stealing cable. The email issue and the security implications are actually worse than what may or may not have happened at Benghazi

"I'm saying you're wrong that she was a "huge proponent of invading Iraq"

Who said this...

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction"

Who said that?

a) #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney
b) Atilla The Hun
c) Sean Hannity
d) Hilary Clinton

Now go to the Huffington Post and ask your fellow world travelers how to respond when you have backed yourself into a corner from which there is no escape.

"With conviction" means you are convinced that it needs to be done. That means you are not wishy-washy on the decision. It's the opposite of undecided.

Source?

I mean a credible one, not the made up quote you posted.

Hillary: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...t2jZ5UwwqMybIi
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry for your quandary, Kevin... But I would really appreciate getting back the 15 seconds I wasted figuring out who the hell H is.... I sure as hell aint going to waste anymore of my time reading dribble that has anything to do with her.... Please refrain from such in the future as life is precious to some of us,,,,,,:devil2:

He said a credible one 😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You might want to lie down before you watch this. Not merely a transcript, but a video of her speech. I suppose you'll tell us that this is actually Newt Gingrich impersonating her. You watch this, and tell me if I'm wrong that she believed the invasion was the right thing to do. No wiggle room there, Spence, you dug yourself into a deep, dark hole on this one. Looking forward to your reply...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

I love it. An edited video.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sorry Ross, I wish I didn't have to waste my time with her either
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just call her Thunderbutt
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there are no security implications the deed and any damage is already done and the policy has been changed and we know what did happen in Benghazi and what didn't happen .. or do we need another investigation

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

I will wait for the outcome of the investigation on the emails and accept the findings
will others ?

we'll have to wait and see .. but if past history is any indicator I dont hold out much hope

You are utterly incapable of rational thought on these matters. But you are precious.

On the emails, we need to see if she broke the law. Spence would be completely satisfied with her saying that she didn't do anything wrong, but there was enough evidence there for the FBI (who works for a Democrat) to launch an investigation. Is no laws were broken, let's say that and move on.

I love how all the Hillary fans hang their hats on it not being illegal (yet)..

Was it careless - yes
Was it irresponsible -yes
Was it self serving - yes
Was it illegal - TBD

Just the qualities I want in the next president.....a self-serving, careless, irresponsible person who likes to work the loopholes.....

What she did was wrong.....period. She bypassed safeguards for her own convenience.Doesn't matter what the FBI finds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jesus Jim, they edit a video to manipulate her intent and you're like a moth to a flame.

Well, to be fair to Hillary I haven't seen any evidence of illegal behavior on her part.

Perhaps, the FBI has seen some evidence. Or does the FBI investigate when there is no evidence for investigating?

Yes, it's amazing how not doing something "illegal" qualifies Hillary for President even though what she did was "wrong." Of course, when other past Presidents who were not of Hillary's political persuasions did wrong but not illegal stuff, that was sufficient to make them incompetent, unqualified, stupid, bad, and not worthy of the office.

But, we have to understand Progressive's use of Orwellian Newspeak. When applied to a Progressive, doing wrong is not wrong doing.

The FBI didn't launch an investigation because they saw evidence of wrongdoing, the investigation was in response to a security referral by the IG over the potential for mishandling of information. That's an important distinction.

I'm sure the 82 special agents are paying attention to that distinction .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are varying degrees of everything. Does being arrested disqualify someone for office? Didn't disqualify Bush.

Really I think one of the most important factors is intent. If Clinton was simply trying to perform under incredibly challenging circumstances people will largely give her a pass.

There are not 82 special agents on this case, you got duped by a long since corrected piece of sloppy reporting.

nor would you ever :rolleyes:...blind partisanship

😂😂😂😂😂 That one will go down as a Spence Top Ten
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't "mishandling of information" doing something wrong?

That's right, because she's a Bond villain. I had forgot about that.

3.5 hour interview with the FBI today. I'm sure she lied somewhere during that interview . I don't think she could help her self
Good bye Clintons
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, because she's eeeeevvvvvvvvvvvvvviiiiiiiiiiiiillllllllllllllllll lll...

Note she wasn't even subpoenaed. There's nothing there...

When the FBI request an interview it's usually best to comply . Even if your name is Clinton
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device