Paul: Benghazi affair should disqualify Clinton from holding office again

[SPC]

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.

[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.

[bballrox4717]

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.

[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.

[Indy Texas]

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

Given the information that was put forward to them at the time, it wouldn't have made sense to vote against the resolution unless you were a McGovern-level dove.

Generally, when a lie is told, the blame falls on the people telling the lie, not the people who believe it to be true and have no reason to think otherwise.

[Averroës Nix]

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

Given the information that was put forward to them at the time, it wouldn't have made sense to vote against the resolution unless you were a McGovern-level dove.

Generally, when a lie is told, the blame falls on the people telling the lie, not the people who believe it to be true and have no reason to think otherwise.

Twenty-one Democrats in the Senate and more in the House voted against the resolution. Opposition was hardly a fringe position, just not one that was in accord with the sacrosanct Beltway consensus.

[Lambsbread]

This is just my opinion, pleases don't get mad:

Hillary Clinton is just so awesome the GOP can't find anything to criticize her for.

Nobody over the age of 12 starts an opinion with "please don't get mad because of my opinion"

on an internet forum where people routinely freak out because someone has a different opinion than they do, there's no reason they shouldn't.

Fair enough.

[SPC]

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

Given the information that was put forward to them at the time, it wouldn't have made sense to vote against the resolution unless you were a McGovern-level dove.

Generally, when a lie is told, the blame falls on the people telling the lie, not the people who believe it to be true and have no reason to think otherwise.

So a majority of the House Democratic caucus were McGovern-level doves?

[Liberalrocks]

And the worm turns, of course. The GOP obsession with Benghazi was about 2016 from the very start.

^THIS. Benghazi is the new Birtherism.

[Zarn]

The thing with Clinton is she clearly did change back to neoncon, once she became SoS. She was only more dovish, when she ran for president and Iraq was very unpopular.

[Beet]

The thing with Clinton is she clearly did change back to neoncon, once she became SoS. She was only more dovish, when she ran for president and Iraq was very unpopular.

Hopefully she's learned a lesson because her (relative) hawkishness has always come back to bite her in the a__.

[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.

[Cory]

Hopefully she's learned a lesson because her (relative) hawkishness has always come back to bite her in the a__.

I honestly think Hillary thinks she needs to be seen as a "tough" hawk in order to men to take her seriously as Commander-in-Chief. At least in 2008. Times have changed I suppose and I don't think her being a woman will be anything other then a plus going into 2016.

[Paul Kemp]

Being a Paul should disqualify Rand from holding office.

[Joe Biden is your president. Deal with it.]

Being a Paul should disqualify Rand from holding office.

1+ and paul fans are nothing but 14 year old outcasts.

[RJEvans]

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.

[Cory]

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...."

[King]

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...."

Relying on Americans to remember a TV commercial from 8 years ago doesn't sound like a winning strategy.

[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/

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Remind me which party cut the embassy security budget.

[Indy Texas]

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

Given the information that was put forward to them at the time, it wouldn't have made sense to vote against the resolution unless you were a McGovern-level dove.

Generally, when a lie is told, the blame falls on the people telling the lie, not the people who believe it to be true and have no reason to think otherwise.

So a majority of the House Democratic caucus were McGovern-level doves?

Perhaps they are, but you are missing my point.

I consider myself a foreign policy realist in the Nixon-Ford-Bush Sr vein. My support for the Iraq War evaporated when it became clear there were no WMDs. And my opinion of the Bush Administration declined precipitously when it became clear they basically BSed their entire case in the run-up to the war.

Given what we knew in late 2002, I think someone who opposed the Iraq War would have been imprudent. Given what we know now, I think anyone who still thinks it was the right thing to do is a total fool.

[Indy Texas]

No, Iraq should disqualify Clinton from becoming President, but apparently all the "liberals" seem to be suffering from collective amnesia. Republicans from making any foreign policy criticism of this president or any future president for at least a generation.

LBJ hung Vietnam around the Democrats' neck and Jimmy Carter hung the Iran hostage crisis around the Democrats' neck and up until Barack Obama they were the party that couldn't be trusted with foreign affairs. The actions of George W. Bush and the fact that many Republicans still defend the Iraq War indicate that now they are the party that can't be trusted with foreign affairs.

[Zarn]

The thing with Clinton is she clearly did change back to neoncon, once she became SoS. She was only more dovish, when she ran for president and Iraq was very unpopular.

Hopefully she's learned a lesson because her (relative) hawkishness has always come back to bite her in the a__.

But why would you want her to win, if she simply switches back post-election? Obama switched to hawk post-election (2008), and he had not shown too much indication before that. Clinton has.

[free my dawg]

Guess it's time for a new season of the hottest sitcom in Washington...

[Warren 4 Secretary of Everything]

The thing with Clinton is she clearly did change back to neoncon, once she became SoS. She was only more dovish, when she ran for president and Iraq was very unpopular.

Hopefully she's learned a lesson because her (relative) hawkishness has always come back to bite her in the a__.

But why would you want her to win, if she simply switches back post-election? Obama switched to hawk post-election (2008), and he had not shown too much indication before that. Clinton has.

The "Obama Was A Dove in 2008" thing is a huge misconception. He always said that Afghanistan was the "right war" and that he'd win it. He was just against the Iraq War. Obama's not a hawk now anyway, he's just pragmatic.