13 Hours

[sirs]

But just to placate the matter.......let's pretend it's all true, that Bush knew Saddam had no WMD, and purposely misled us to believe he did, so that we could enter war.  How does that in any way absolve the current Democrat front runner, from not just the lies she provided in trying to cover-up her incomptence with Benghazi, but the ever-growing mountain of reckless irresponsibility to this country's safety/security, by maintaining a private unsecured server to all manner of classified e-mail information......an act that would courtmartial any standing military member, and putting in prison anyone else??

Convenience isn't an acceptable excuse, I'm afraid

While I am not saying one excuses the other, given those circumstances - that Bush knew and lied - I would seriously consider the body count. Iraq versus Benghazi - which do you think would be higher?

If all things were equal, as in if Bush knew Saddam had no WMD, but took us into war anyways, then you'd have a point.  Since that isn't the case, as in there is no demonstrable proof of that quailifier, what you have is war, and in war people do die.  Thankfully, compared to so many other wars, the lives lost in Iraq, are a mere fraction, compared to nearly every other war.

Now back to the point of Clinton, and her demonstrably proven lies.....

[Xavier_Onassis]

That is what you like to wank off about. It is all yours. Enjoy.

I have had enough, I don't even want to watch.

[sirs]

sirs believes in WMD's.

More accurately, Sirs believes in the vast majority of global intel, that most everyone else did as well, that claimed Saddam had WMD's.  The simple fact he had even used them on the Kurds helps support that initial conclusion

sirs wants all Democrats to be perfect, and alas, they all fall short of his definition of this.

More accurately, Sirs wants ALL politicians to be held accountable to their actions.  Actions taken with the judgement of doing what's right for this country, gets a long leash.  Actions taken to cover one's ass, and put America at risk at the same time, gets pretty much no leash

Dick Cheney apparently does not need to be perfect.

Nor is he expected to be.       Notice now the changing goal posts....the effort to paint what Clinton did, with simply inferring "nobody's perfect".  What she did with her e-mail, was criminal, period.  She put this country at risk (and more likely than not, that unsecured server has been hacked by the Russians and Chinese, perhaps even the Iranians and North Koreans.  They're not going to tell us of course, they're just going to use all that classified top secret information they pulled from her to go after our most secured intelligence assets, and put at greater risk our country in general. 

And it wasn't as irresponsible as to convenience either.  She's far too smart to pull a Lindsey Lohan.  The "convenience" excuse is just another lie.  She did it to have complete control of everything that went thru her and the Clinton foundation, while she was SoS.  Oversight didn't exist with her, since she didn't adhere to what EVERY OTHER government employee must.  The safety and security of this country, came at the expense of her being able to not allow any Government committee or agency to see what she was doing, or how it may have connected with the Clinton Foundation.  That's validated by how she tried to wipe the server clean before turning it over

[Plane]

Hillary has a lot of problems any one of which by itself would cost her my vote.

But when she was a Senator and voted to invade Iraq ,for that one I can give her a pass.

I thought the same thing at the time , that Saddam was a festering boil that could only get worse as it was neglected.

[Xavier_Onassis]

And you were wrong. Invading Iraq was a disastrous idea.

Eisenhower said we should fight NO LAND WARS IN ASIA, and he was right.

And it is hard to imagine anything as poorly done as that invasion.

Hillary did not vote to invade Iraq. The issue was giving the power to Juniorbush to do it at his own discretion. It enabled him to make a credible threat to Saddam.  It was a bad vote, and one Bernie refused to make.  I opposed it because the evidence presented was clearly bogus. 

[Plane]

  This must mean that YOU are smarter than Hillary R Clinton.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Well yes, I am.  I am also smarter than each and every one of those fools that is running as a Republican.

[sirs]

I have had enough, I don't even want to watch.

lol....and yet you continue to "watch"

And you were wrong. Invading Iraq was a disastrous idea.

That was a judgement call, and in no way some attempt to CYA. 

Eisenhower said we should fight NO LAND WARS IN ASIA, and he was right.

An opinion.  One that can only be based on the situation at hand

And it is hard to imagine anything as poorly done as that invasion.

Hardly, given its speed and success at taking out the enemy with a mere fraction of causalities compared to other wars

Hillary did not vote to invade Iraq. The issue was giving the power to Juniorbush to do it at his own discretion.

What the hell is the difference??.....see, that's precisely the games politicians play.  She'll vote to support any war effort, unless it goes bad, then she can claim she never supported it??  Seriously??

It enabled him to make a credible threat to Saddam.

Actions speak louder than words.  If a leader doesn't back up what they say, when the other side violates or ignores, they have no credibility for anything that follows.  See current Iranian & Syrian debacles for a some prime examples of that scenario playing out

I opposed it because the evidence presented was clearly bogus.

Based on what exactly??  Your gut??

[Xavier_Onassis]

I based my opinion on the way that Juniorbush answered reporters, as he wavered on the answers and acted as though he had been prompted on what to say. He did not say that Saddam has received yellowcake Uranium from Niger. He sai=d that he has TRIED to obtain bomb materials from (oause, tremble in voice) AFRICA.

I lived in Mexico in a period in which the officials of the Gustavo Diaz Ordaz government had beaten and killed protesters, even invading hospitals to kidnap than then disappear wounded student protesters. They denied everything. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld Feith, Chalabi and the rest of them answered in the same nervous way. It was totally clear to me that they  did not believe their own bullshit.

[sirs]

In other words, nothing more than your gut.  I'm going with the vast predominant majority of intel that had concluded otherwise.  Suffice to say, I didn't go with my "gut?  I went with the available objective data at the time.  That included Clinton's vote to SUPPORT military intervention, as well