Milo Yiannopoulos

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by spence

You mean the same Bob Gates who described Hillary as "smart, idealistic but pragmatic, tough-minded, indefatigable, funny, a very valuable colleague, and a superb representative of the United States all over the world."

The same Bob Gates who had to clarify his characterization of Obama making nearly the exact same political statement because it was taken out of context?

The same Hillary who publicly opposed the surge because she thought the troops would be of more use in Afghanistan?

I for one have never seen a ghost writer sensationalize a story to give it some edge and make some headlines. Frankly I'm not sure it's even ever happened.

So you are questioning the integrity of likely the one person that was in both admins with some integrity?

So should I also discount his opinion of Obama - which was generally favorable ?

[spence]

Originally Posted by JohnR

So you are questioning the integrity of likely the one person that was in both admins with some integrity?

So should I also discount his opinion of Obama - which was generally favorable ?

I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points. He had to walk back his statement about Obama on the exact same topic in the exact same book.

I'm sure Clinton did consider the political optics of that vote in her decision but also think she was against it. This is normal.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points.

I know what you mean.....I know this guy, on a fishing website.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I don't question Gate's integrity at all, but even good people make misleading points. He had to walk back his statement about Obama on the exact same topic in the exact same book.

I'm sure Clinton did consider the political optics of that vote in her decision but also think she was against it. This is normal.

Spence, she was against the Surge, as the video shows, because she didn't think it could possibly produce the benefits that Petreus claimed it would provide. She actually insulted Petreus, saying that to believe him, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". That's basically saying that no sane person would believe him.

Yet he was 100% right. So what des it say about her "net leadership value", that she was dead wrong on the Surge?