Paul: Benghazi affair should disqualify Clinton from holding office again

[BluegrassBlueVote]

No, Iraq should disqualify Clinton from becoming President, but apparently all the "liberals" seem to be suffering from collective amnesia.

These purity tests are fun and all, but it's not like any Democrat in the future will be embarking on another Iraq. Hillary's vote and flip-flop are regrettable, but it won't be a problem in her hypothetical administration. Unreasonable ideological inflexibility is not going to cost us the woman who is (by far) our best bet at retaining the White House.

If she was in the minority of the party back in 2002 and defying Democratic leadership, it would be a different story. She wasn't a maverick on the issue; far too many Democrats made the wrong choice.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

No, Iraq should disqualify Clinton from becoming President, but apparently all the "liberals" seem to be suffering from collective amnesia.

These purity tests are fun and all, but it's not like any Democrat in the future will be embarking on another Iraq. Hillary's vote and flip-flop are regrettable, but it won't be a problem in her hypothetical administration. Unreasonable ideological inflexibility is not going to cost us the woman who is (by far) our best bet at retaining the White House.

If she was in the minority of the party back in 2002 and defying Democratic leadership, it would be a different story. She wasn't a maverick on the issue; far too many Democrats made the wrong choice.

If they made the wrong choice before, they can make it again.  The exact same situation won't come up again, but it's worth questioning whether politicians have taken the right lessons from it.

History repeating itself? Nonsense!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_of_the_Spanish%E2%80%93American_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution

So let's start worrying 40-60 years down the line? I agree.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

She was a senator of New York. How exactly was she going to lose that election?

Hillary knew she wanted to be president in 2008 by the time the question of Iraq was rolling around. After a lot of Democrats emerged with egg on their faces at the end of the Gulf War, I think a lot of Democrats gambled on what vote would look best in a future general election. And it wasn't just Clinton; Kerry, Edwards, Warner, and Biden (who voted against action in 1990) all thought the same.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

She was a senator of New York. How exactly was she going to lose that election?

Hillary knew she wanted to be president in 2008 by the time the question of Iraq was rolling around. After a lot of Democrats emerged with egg on their faces at the end of the Gulf War, I think a lot of Democrats gambled on what vote would look best in a future general election. And it wasn't just Clinton; Kerry, Edwards, Warner, and Biden (who voted against action in 1990) all thought the same.

So Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Warner, and Biden aren't hawks; they just have the political courage of a weather vane. That is a great quality for a prospective president to have.

I'm explaining the rationale.

Votes on military action are cast with as much strategy and electoral selfishness as any on the economy. That's politics.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

She was a senator of New York. How exactly was she going to lose that election?

Hillary knew she wanted to be president in 2008 by the time the question of Iraq was rolling around. After a lot of Democrats emerged with egg on their faces at the end of the Gulf War, I think a lot of Democrats gambled on what vote would look best in a future general election. And it wasn't just Clinton; Kerry, Edwards, Warner, and Biden (who voted against action in 1990) all thought the same.

So Clinton, Kerry, Edwards, Warner, and Biden aren't hawks; they just have the political courage of a weather vane. That is a great quality for a prospective president to have.

Erm not to be that guy but Warner was governor of Virginia at the time of the vote.

Whoops, that's actually my fault, not his. Was thinking of presidential aspirants and mistook him for Bayh.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Even two-and-a-half years from the primaries, I don't think Mark friggin' Penn could find a way to blow a 50-point lead when none of the other heavyweights would run against Hillary.

The general would be a different beast.

[BluegrassBlueVote]

Okay, I think we got sidetracked here. Lets get back to the core question:

How much of a liability will the Benghazi attack be on Hillary Clinton if she chooses to run in 2016?

You already have one family member (Pat Smith) who outright blames Clinton. You could imagine seeing ads with Smith running saying she blames Clinton for her son's death. That will be a devastating attack ad. There is no way the GOP is going to let this go because it is one of the only blemishes on her record at State.

I can see the attack ad now:

*backdrop of Hillary's "3 AM phone call" ad from 2008.*

"Hillary Clinton said she was capable handling the 3 Am phone call, well on September 11th (deliberate reference), 2012 she got her call and...."

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/05/exclusive-the-rnc-benghazi-attack-ad-that-never-ran/