Hillary called out!! Obama scores again!

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Weren't you paying attention? Hillary says it's only irresponsible when a presidential candidate discusses the use of nuclear weapons. She wasn't running for president in April 2006.

The point isn't that they were discussing the use of nuclear weapons, it's that she criticized Obama for saying that he would take them off the table completely, after she herself said the same exact thing last year.

That's called being a hypocrite.

Sorry. Check the update.

She was talking about taking nukes off the table in conflicts with the sovereign state of Iran. Obama was talking about taking nukes off the table in conflicts with decentralized terrorist groups in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That's also a difference...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Weren't you paying attention? Hillary says it's only irresponsible when a presidential candidate discusses the use of nuclear weapons. She wasn't running for president in April 2006.

The point isn't that they were discussing the use of nuclear weapons, it's that she criticized Obama for saying that he would take them off the table completely, after she herself said the same exact thing last year.

That's called being a hypocrite.

Sorry. Check the update.

She was talking about taking nukes off the table in conflicts with the sovereign state of Iran. Obama was talking about taking nukes off the table in conflicts with decentralized terrorist groups in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That's also a difference...

lol... you could probably get a decent job being one of her spinsters! nice one!

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Weren't you paying attention? Hillary says it's only irresponsible when a presidential candidate discusses the use of nuclear weapons. She wasn't running for president in April 2006.

The point isn't that they were discussing the use of nuclear weapons, it's that she criticized Obama for saying that he would take them off the table completely, after she herself said the same exact thing last year.

That's called being a hypocrite.

Sorry. Check the update.

She was talking about taking nukes off the table in conflicts with the sovereign state of Iran. Obama was talking about taking nukes off the table in conflicts with decentralized terrorist groups in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That's also a difference...

lol... you could probably get a decent job being one of her spinsters! nice one!

But it's different

Yeah, and you could probably get a job working for Bush...

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Weren't you paying attention? Hillary says it's only irresponsible when a presidential candidate discusses the use of nuclear weapons. She wasn't running for president in April 2006.

The point isn't that they were discussing the use of nuclear weapons, it's that she criticized Obama for saying that he would take them off the table completely, after she herself said the same exact thing last year.

That's called being a hypocrite.

Sorry. Check the update.

She was talking about taking nukes off the table in conflicts with the sovereign state of Iran. Obama was talking about taking nukes off the table in conflicts with decentralized terrorist groups in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

That's also a difference...

lol... you could probably get a decent job being one of her spinsters! nice one!

But it's different

Yeah, and you could probably get a job working for Bush...

perhaps... but then again, I already have a job working for Bush

That said, the two statements were NOT different because her initial objection to Obama had nothing to do with the two situations being different. She basically said last week that they should never be taken off of the table as an option. She did uin order to make Obama look naive and inexperienced - only to realize later that she herself had made the same mistake last year... DOH!

whatever the case, this is just one of a million things that demonstrates her hypocrisy.

 

[OrByte]

The republican field is so boring and worthless its no wonder all we here about is Obama and Hillary.

I guess that is where the real race is.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: OrByte
The republican field is so boring and worthless its no wonder all we here about is Obama and Hillary.

I guess that is where the real race is.

pun intended?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
I posted this fact in the thread about Obama's recent statements and the entire Left here at ATP&N ignored it... Not that I expected them to respond, as the screwup involved both of their "heroes." DOH!

Neither of them are a hero until they wrest control of the Presidency from your heroes.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

I believe Clinton had plans drawn up for an invasion of Afghanistan right after the embassy bombings. It was during the Lewinksy scandal though so the Republicans accused him of trying to draw attention away from that.

And what did Bush do about al Qaeda the first eight months he was in office? Absolutely nothing.

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
At this point, Hillary could eat dead babies out of Ron Paul's ass during the Super Bowl half time show and still win. Give it up neocons. Your show is coming to an end.

If fort any reason Hillary is the Democratic nominee you will for sure see a republican in the white house for 4 more years!!!

Hillary is a huge liability for the Democrats!!

Bookmarked.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

I believe Clinton had plans drawn up for an invasion of Afghanistan right after the embassy bombings. It was during the Lewinksy scandal though so the Republicans accused him of trying to draw attention away from that.

And what did Bush do about al Qaeda the first eight months he was in office? Absolutely nothing.

QFT.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

I believe Clinton had plans drawn up for an invasion of Afghanistan right after the embassy bombings. It was during the Lewinksy scandal though so the Republicans accused him of trying to draw attention away from that.

And what did Bush do about al Qaeda the first eight months he was in office? Absolutely nothing.

QFT.

Hmmmm....one had 8 years, the other had 8 months, its obviously Bush's fault....:roll:

 

[umbrella39]

I am not sure blaming the old store keeper for a crime committed 8 months after he retired is going to float any more.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

I believe Clinton had plans drawn up for an invasion of Afghanistan right after the embassy bombings. It was during the Lewinksy scandal though so the Republicans accused him of trying to draw attention away from that.

And what did Bush do about al Qaeda the first eight months he was in office? Absolutely nothing.

QFT.

Hmmmm....one had 8 years, the other had 8 months, its obviously Bush's fault....:roll:

ah, the old meme of 8 months as defense for doing NOTHING.....

Bush and his team did nothing.... If the nation was so clearly at risk for attack, the fact that Bush and team ignored this makes their failure as leaders so clear that only Stevie Wonder wouldn't see it, but he'd sure smell that shat......

 

[alchemize]

How did this thread go to a pissing match about who holds more responsibilty for 9/11?

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

I believe Clinton had plans drawn up for an invasion of Afghanistan right after the embassy bombings. It was during the Lewinksy scandal though so the Republicans accused him of trying to draw attention away from that.

And what did Bush do about al Qaeda the first eight months he was in office? Absolutely nothing.

QFT.

Hmmmm....one had 8 years, the other had 8 months, its obviously Bush's fault....:roll:

ah, the old meme of 8 months as defense for doing NOTHING.....

Bush and his team did nothing.... If the nation was so clearly at risk for attack, the fact that Bush and team ignored this makes their failure as leaders so clear that only Stevie Wonder wouldn't see it, but he'd sure smell that shat......

I'm not defending Bush at all, I'm just pointing out the idiocy of the people that lay all of the blame on Bush and use the excuse that he had 8 whole months to do what Clinton couldn't do (and completely ignored) for 8 years. Its idiotic.

Personally, I don't lay the blame on anyone, it was a different world back then, but this is going completely OT...

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: alchemize
How did this thread go to a pissing match about who holds more responsibilty for 9/11?

It comes down to those who keep beating their 911 drum.....

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: alchemize
How did this thread go to a pissing match about who holds more responsibilty for 9/11?

Come on now, this is P&N, GWB gets brought into every thread, no matter what the topic. It looks like 1EZduzit took care of that in this thread.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

Quick, who was president when the attacks happened? That's right, Bush. Didn't Rice also ignore OBL? Yep.

Spin baby, spin!!

Thats completely dishonest and you know it. Thats like Hillary winning in 08, and then the day after she takes office, Republicans go blame every single thing that happens in Iraq on her. I have no doubt that some would do that, but do you really want to be associated with that crowd?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

Quick, who was president when the attacks happened? That's right, Bush. Didn't Rice also ignore OBL? Yep.

Spin baby, spin!!

Thats completely dishonest and you know it. Thats like Hillary winning in 08, and then the day after she takes office, Republicans go blame every single thing that happens in Iraq on her. I have no doubt that some would do that, but do you really want to be associated with that crowd?

Well, actually, Clinton wants a phased withdrawl, so unless something drastic happens, I don't think she'll get any flak for Iraq as President.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

I believe Clinton had plans drawn up for an invasion of Afghanistan right after the embassy bombings. It was during the Lewinksy scandal though so the Republicans accused him of trying to draw attention away from that.

And what did Bush do about al Qaeda the first eight months he was in office? Absolutely nothing.

QFT.

Hmmmm....one had 8 years, the other had 8 months, its obviously Bush's fault....:roll:

ah, the old meme of 8 months as defense for doing NOTHING.....

Bush and his team did nothing.... If the nation was so clearly at risk for attack, the fact that Bush and team ignored this makes their failure as leaders so clear that only Stevie Wonder wouldn't see it, but he'd sure smell that shat......

I'm not defending Bush at all, I'm just pointing out the idiocy of the people that lay all of the blame on Bush and use the excuse that he had 8 whole months to do what Clinton couldn't do (and completely ignored) for 8 years. Its idiotic.

Personally, I don't lay the blame on anyone, it was a different world back then, but this is going completely OT...

Okay, first off I never said it was all Bush's fault. Even if he had done something, 9/11 probably still would have happened.

Also, Clinton did take action. He bombed training camps in Sudan and Afghanistan after the embassy bombings and called for an invasion of Afghanistan after the Cole bombing. Saying he completely ignored bin Laden is ignoring what actually happened.

That's the last thing I'll say about this because it's off topic.

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: palehorse74

lol... you could probably get a decent job being one of her spinsters! nice one!

But it's different

Yeah, and you could probably get a job working for Bush...

perhaps... but then again, I already have a job working for Bush

That said, the two statements were NOT different because her initial objection to Obama had nothing to do with the two situations being different. She basically said last week that they should never be taken off of the table as an option. She did uin order to make Obama look naive and inexperienced - only to realize later that she herself had made the same mistake last year... DOH!

whatever the case, this is just one of a million things that demonstrates her hypocrisy.

I'd barely call this one case and I'm sure there's not a million total. Do the math.

Anyway, her campaign already took care of this so it's a closed issue. Here's what they said:

Phil Singer, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton, said she was responding to a specific news report at the time that the Bush administration was considering nuclear strikes on Iran. The context, he said, was different than the scenario raised last week by Mr. Obama.

?Senator Clinton was not talking about a broad hypothetical nor was she speaking as a presidential candidate,? Mr. Singer said. ?Given the saber-rattling that was coming from the Bush White House at the time, it was totally appropriate and necessary to respond to that report and call it the wrong policy.?

From here - Text

Mods, go ahead and lock the thread.

 

[b0mbrman]

Also, who called Hillary out for contradicting herself? It wasn't Obama so why does this even count? It was the media

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: senseamp
The vitriol directed at Hillary from the right is my prime reason for supporting her. Keep it up.

Well at least we can see that you're supporting her for all the right reasons... :roll:

Enemy of my enemy is my friend. A candidate that would be palatable to the right would not be acceptable to me. Elections have to mean something. If we have rightwinger and rightwinger lite running against each other, that's not much of a choice, now is it?

I will agree with you that ALL of the choices leave something to be desired; but Hillary is by far the worst of the bunch! She lacks all emotion and will tell you anything she thinks you want to hear.

Her flipflop demonstrated in the OP is just one example out of a million just like it!

I personally believe that she just may be the son or daughter of Lucifer himself...

All of your repubs are flip floppers, too or simply f**king braindead. Fact is, every person who's currently running for president should be immediately banned from the idea. They all suck. At least I haven't seen any youtube vids easily ripping apart ron paul or obama yet, but that may be just my fault for not watching any. I've seen them on some of the others.

AFAIC, 9/11 happened because Clinton ignored AQ and the Taliban for eight years.

Then why did the first trade center attack happen? AFAIC, Iraq war happened because Bush ignored his doctor's orders for years and years and sucked on too much grass.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: michaels
We are screwed regardless of what party wins, don't kid yourselves.

Things weren't actually that bad about oh, 6 or 7 years or so ago.

you mean just when AQ was in the last stage of their master plan to attack the US... after seeing Clinton do nothing after the first 1993 attack... and again after the Cole was hit... and seeing us chased out of Somalia... and the African embassy bombings... and... and... ?

You're right... everything was just peachy.

Quick, who was president when the attacks happened? That's right, Bush. Didn't Rice also ignore OBL? Yep.

Spin baby, spin!!

Thats completely dishonest and you know it. Thats like Hillary winning in 08, and then the day after she takes office, Republicans go blame every single thing that happens in Iraq on her. I have no doubt that some would do that, but do you really want to be associated with that crowd?

Well, actually, Clinton wants a phased withdrawl, so unless something drastic happens, I don't think she'll get any flak for Iraq as President.

until she actually steps foot into the white house and quickly learns from her entire National Security and Defense team that withdrawal is not an option... that'll be a h00t!!

bet?

 

[StageLeft]

until she actually steps foot into the white house and quickly learns from her entire National Security and Defense team that withdrawal is not an option... that'll be a h00t!!

These the same geniuses who thought there were WMD in Iraq?