Hillary Clinton

Who Would Hillary Clinton Bomb?

She's rarely met a war she didn't like-or a constitutional limit she deems worth respecting.


Judging by the early reviews, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's new memoir, Hard Choices, is a cautious, poll-tested tome, drafted with an eye toward 2016.

But she says at least one interesting thing in the book.

On her 2002 vote to authorize the Iraq War, Secretary Clinton writes: "I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. … But I still got it wrong."

What a strange formulation! Was then-Senator Clinton dissociated from her own mental state in the post-9/11 fog of war? "I thought I had acted in good faith," but … I later found out my motives were base and mercenary?

Well, as the lady herself noted some 20 years ago, it's not easy to figure out "who we are as human beings in this post-modern age."

"What difference, at this point, does it make?" you might ask. Actually, Clinton's role in the worst foreign policy disaster in 30 years is highly relevant to her fitness for higher office.

In her October 2002 speech on the resolution, Senator Clinton declared: "the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," among them, the vitality of Saddam Hussein's nuclear program and his record of harboring al Qaeda. But she wasn't interested enough in the facts to bother reading the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq–portions of which cast serious doubt on those claims.

After her vote, Clinton embarked on a decade-long journey of self-discovery on Iraq. In 2004, she declared, "I don't regret giving the president authority," It wasn't a vote to go to war, anyway.

In 2008, she accused "Meet the Press'" Tim Russert of getting all "Jesuitical" when he pointed out that the measure she voted for said "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" right there at the top. Still, Clinton maintained, "it was a sincere vote at the time"; now, however, she's not so sure.

I can't help Clinton in her Boomerish quest for authenticity, but her vote seems entirely consistent with her record. In her long career, she's rarely met a war she didn't like—or a constitutional limit she deems worth respecting.

In 2007, asked by reporter Charlie Savage about the limits of presidential war powers, candidate Clinton replied: "the Constitution requires Congress to authorize war. I do not believe that the president can take military action—including any kind of strategic bombing—against Iran without congressional authorization."

It's hard to credit that answer as "sincere." As first lady, Clinton played a key role in convincing her husband to bomb Serbia without congressional approval. For eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, she refused to speak to her husband, until, in March 1999, she phoned him with a directive to attack.

"I urged him to bomb," she later explained.

As secretary of State, she urged President Obama to bomb Libya, congressional authorization be damned. If the results haven't been particularly pretty, at least Clinton got some amusement out of the war. Upon hearing that Gadhafi had been killed by a rebel mob, she cracked, "we came, we saw, he died."

I shed no tears for the "mad dog of the Middle East," but given that he slipped this mortal coil while being sodomized with a combat knife, that seems a little callous. At least we could hope for a secretary of state with a dash more decorum, one who avoids the rhetorical stylings of Julius Caesar.

But Clinton is to the Imperial manner born. And if she realizes her ambitions in 2016, she won't have to urge anyone else to bomb.

This column originally appeared in the Washington Examiner. 

NEXT: CIA Joins Twitter, Starts Off With a Groaner

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Alt text: “Why so serious?”

  2. Who Would Hillary Clinton bomb?

    If I could, I would Hillary Clinton bomb.

    (Just kidding of course. I’d never bomb a soul. Nothing to see here.)

  3. I sore my first Hillary 2016 bumper sticker this weekend.

    … I also saw a “Yes We Can…Impeach Obama” bumper sticker… on a Prius.

    When you’ve lost Prius drivers.

    1. And just the other day I saw a deadhead sticker on a Cadillac.

      1. Should have checked to make sure nobody stole my joke 🙁

        1. He stole it before you said it?

          pre-cognitive crime?

          1. I see that Hillary isn’t the only thing bombing here.

    2. Meh, in 2004 I saw a W’04 sticker right next to a Vive La France! bumper sticker on a Prius in Nashville.

  4. Twenty three of her fellow Senate Dems had the good sense to vote against Bush’s lies then. That alone should disqualify her from the presidency forever.

    1. You’ll change your tune if she gets the nomination Weigel. Weigel is as Weigel does.

    2. Hillary would be at least a four year continuation of the same center-right corporatism we will have been under for 24 years by the time she is sworn in.

    3. 20 of her fellow Dems and one “independent”, actually. But you’re off by less than 8%

  5. Oh joy; soon, we will be subject to a Hillary-boosting campaign from the media as they latch onto her as the next “first something something” (in this case, first female president) that they have become so addicted to. Hillary’s going to bomb something all right. Common decency and our ability to not hear about her 24/7.

    1. Wait, are you saying you’re not ready for Hillary?

      1. I double dog dare you to put one of those on your car, jesse. You have a car, right? A clown car?

        1. Well, to be fair, I’m ready for Hillary too, but in a different way.

        2. My Honda Fit resembles that remark!

          1. Please tell me you’re joking. I would have bet money on you having a Sebring. Convertible, of course.

            1. Pl?ya asked me to drive when we met up with Sudden in DTLA, and then when I showed up in a Fit, he refused to get in my car saying “I can’t be seen in this.”

              1. One of the reasons I didn’t go to the Reason video game event was that the valets would have laughed at how old and beat up my car was.

                1. There were no valet people out front when I drove by, so I parked around the corner. When I walked up there were four valet people.

                  I was displeased until free beer happened.

      2. Ew!


        That is SO gross….

      3. Are “Ready for Oligarchy?”

        1. Wait, what? Do they have some sort of copyright or something? Is that even possible for a political slogan? You can claim rights to all slogans that start with “I’m ready for…”? WTF?

      4. It’s going to be a shit storm the first time someone posts a picture of one of those bumper stickers on an AR15.

  6. “I thought I had acted in good faith and made the best decision I could with the information I had. … But I still got it wrong.”

    She didn’t mean she got it wrong for the country. Don’t be silly!

    She meant she “got it wrong” because it cost her the nomination in 2008.

    1. Goddamnit, Ken, I asked you a question earlier! Answer!

      What kind of bike(s) do you have/ride?

      Thanks in advance for your response…;)

    2. That is the sweet justice of it. Obama’s winning margin was so thin that fact cannot be reasonably disputed.

      1. Pity that the Democrat bench is so thin that this retread is the only viable candidate they have to offer.

        1. It’s Romney’s Billary’s Turn?!

          /Team Maroon

        2. True, but the Dems have one automatic winner – Gov Schweitzer. A Western pro-gun, pro-energy populist who wants the job. But they are too stupid to nominate him.

          He would win 40 states.

          1. Schweitzer would be better than Clinton, Cuomo or O’Malley, but that’s like that Oompa-Loompas are taller than Lilliputians.

            Wyden would be less than terrible choice too.

            1. At the very least, Schweitzer’s “king of soundbites” schtick would get tiring very quickly.

  7. Actually, Clinton’s role in the worst foreign policy disaster in 30 years is highly relevant to her fitness for higher office.


    (saved you Peanuts the trouble)


      1. You know if John were here (among others) he would be busy telling Healy how Libya was EXACTLY THE SAME AS IRAQ. And how Obama not staying in Iraq ruined Bush’s Master Plan for the Middle East.

        1. needz moar christfag bushitler

        2. I can’t speak for John, but personally, Clinton’s Benghazi is completely unique. I’d say it’s been like Kissinger’s Iran, but that’s comparing Hillary Clinton to Henry Kissinger.

          Wait, yeah, Hillary can eat sand; Clinton’s Benghazi has been like Kissinger’s Iran.

    2. Support for Hillary has never been about her actual track record of governance.

      However, being able to campaign for President in your late 60s and after 30 years in the public eye, based purely on potential and ‘looking forward’ rather than asking what she has done in the past is quite the political accomplishment in itself.

      1. Its a bit funny that the philosophy of the Democrat Party has long been that of advocating the rule of ‘top men’ expert technocrats but their major players for over a decade have been middling politicians with little to no accomplishments known primarily for their family connections (Hillary, Al Gore) or membership in some ‘suspect class’ (Hillary, Obama).

        1. She’s a woman who speaks to some vague Democratic talking points. That’s enough for the Democratic base.

        2. Because progressivism is no longer an argument.

          It’s an exercise in massaging the feelings of people of no definite political philosophy at all.

          African-Americans would be hard pressed to point to anything that Obama has actually done for them.

          But it made many of them feel good to see a black President.

          Hillary has done nothing for anyone anywhere ever.

          But it will make many women feel good to see a female President.

          That’s really all there is to it.

          1. The ACA has helped and will help millions more African Americans than decades of lecturing at them about their laziness ever has.

            1. I almost typed a reply but didn’t want to draw the ire of Tonio.

            2. Ha, health care costs for blacks have gone up just like they have for other Americans thanks to the ACA. Of course, blacks on average have less money to pay for this increase, so there’s that.

              Ah the leftist refrain that asking responsibility from someone is “lecturing at them about their laziness.” Of course, the left believes that blacks are somehow unable to embrace this responsibility and must have superior whites take responsibility for them.

            3. Everybody has asked the question. . .”What shall we do with the Negro?” I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us! Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us! If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are wormeaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall! I am not for tying or fastening them on the tree in any way, except by nature’s plan, and if they will not stay there, let them fall. And if the Negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs! Let him alone!

              –Frederick Douglass

              Gosh Tony! You’re right! Continue ‘helping’. You Racist!

      2. A neighbor at a picnic the other day insisted that if Hillary was elected, there would be no more wars. I mentioned that she wasn’t nominated in 2008 in large part because of her support of the Iraq war. She paused, mumbled something about it being time a for a woman to run the country.

  8. Ok I can’t believe no one has said this yet.

    Monica Lewinsky

      1. G-U-M-S

      2. John Hamm is kind of hot. That is who you were referring to right?

      3. What year is that photo from?

        1. It’s from earlier this year.

  9. What difference – at this point – does it make?

    Tried to post that forever ago, but SKWERLZ!!! Now IE works and Chrome doesn’t. Tha FUCK?


  10. The girl on the Today show this morning covering her book tour was a picture of absolute joy.


    That is the way they will cover her for the duration.

    BTW, Mosul fell to insurgents today. Probably only briefly – but fucking MOSUL.

    I thought the Kurdish areas were the real success story?

    Remind me again what we accomplished in Iraq that was worth the expense.

    1. Um….Mission Accomplished?

      1. Are we talking about healthcare or war?

      2. We didn’t say WHOSE mission did we?

    2. They’ll be too busy fighting each other to come after us for years? And we’ve spread the same instability to Syria and Egypt?

    3. Mosul is not Kurdish. It is near the Kurdish areas but is majority Suni Arab.

      1. Wasn’t Mosul the town that Saddam cleansed of Kurds and filled up with Sunnis? Maybe the Kurds are taking it back.

        1. Oh, nope. Just read a story on it. It’s fucking sunni crazies deposing sunni less-crazies.

  11. I think a better question is “What would Hillary Clinton DO with Obama’s newly expanded presidential powers?”

    Take Obama’s penchant for using executive orders to legislate, and imaging them in the hands of Hillary Clinton.

    1. No, I don’t want to. STOP IT, HAZEL!! That’s not nice!!

    2. Isn’t that a nice thought. For all of her evil she is a shrewder operator than Obama could ever hope to be. I don’t really know if that would be better or worse than what we have now, though. The only thing that I am certain of is that individual freedom (the real kind, not a wilted plate of license served with a 2oz side of freedom dressing) will be reduced no matter who gets elected president. The question for the nation seems to be: “You’ve decided on an authoritarian future, so how fast do you want to get there?”

  12. Oh, great. Now Chrome works and IE doesn’t.


    1. I wonder who at Reason decided it would be a hoot to put out the skwrl bait and troll bait at the same time? Posts with an overload of derp that you can only intermittently and unreliably respond to. It’s like a scientific experiment in frustration.

  13. Easy question-who do the polls say to bomb?

  14. Who would Hillary bomb?

    Considering she was living in poverty after being FLOTUS, she probably couldn’t afford to bomb anything.

  15. Didn’t she bomb a nomination run in 08?


  16. BTW the answer to Healy’s question is “under-capitalized pizza places”.

    She fucking hates under-capitalized pizza places.

  17. “In 2008, she accused “Meet the Press'” Tim Russert of getting all “Jesuitical” when he pointed out that the measure she voted for said “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002″ right there at the top.”

    So…being Jesuitical means pointing out inconvenient facts?

    When a Jesuit tries to pull a fast one, the other Jesuits say he’s being Clintonical.

  18. Fewer places than her Republican opponent–that’s a given. Now which hyperventilating hillbilly assclown is it gonna be? Her single biggest political asset is something she didn’t even do. Republicans are going to try the ageist and sexist dogwhistle thing, not realizing that there are a lot more old people and women than the demographic they were shitting on when it was Obama’s turn, and their vote decides the election.

    Clinton on Rand Paul saying Monica Lewinsky is fair game:

    “He can talk about whatever he wants to talk about. And if he decides to run, he’ll be fair game too.”

    It’s the glint of ruthlessness that has always made me a Hillary fan.

    1. “So, what is a dogwhistle, Tony?”

      “It’s a message racists and sexists can hear. I can perceive it distinctly!”

    2. Where did she use that “glint of ruthlessness” for good? Her single bill as a Senator was a stupid video game ban that thankfully failed.

      Obama actually sponsored two successful bills in less time in the Senate.

    3. This is why you’re one of the worst scumbags going.

      Based on EVERY OTHER WORD YOU HAVE EVER WRITTEN HERE EVER, you should hate Hillary.

      Utterly despise her.

      She opposed gay marriage for decades. She favors every piss-ante SoCon anti-first-amendment nonsense initiative one might care to name. She favors every last element of the Bush/Obama national security state.

      She doesn’t even have any great progressive bona fides to demonstrate. HillaryCare never happened. She championed exactly zero left-wing economic causes as a Senator.

      So why do you love her?

      I’m forced to conclude it’s because you’re a cunt.

      Fewer places than her Republican opponent–that’s a given.

      Suuuuuuure. Hillary will bomb fewer places than Rand Paul. Exactly! You’re a genius.

      1. The ruthlessness quote says everything you need to know about Tony. He sucks the Cock of Power, even if that does mean it is a strap-on.

      2. I don’t give a fuck what she supported or voted for in the past. It’s window dressing. A legislator wins the presidency by taking as few controversial stands as possible (turns out that Iraq War vote was insurmountable for her). Someone with her long history wins by having been vague and cowardly for as long as possible.

        You’re under the mistaken impression that I’m like you guys and believe that a politician’s deeply held convictions or lack thereof matter in the slightest. She will accomplish whatever the composition of Congress allows her to accomplish. She will mostly sign good bills and veto bad ones, and a Republican will do the exact opposite (from my perspective). That’s all that matters.

        You’re probably right about Rand Paul and the bombing, but he’s never going to be the nominee.

        1. Jumped the shark on that one.

        2. HAHAHAHA holy shit. You just straight up admitted to having no principles and only voting based on TEAM.

          1. This isn’t terribly surprising. Tony sucks the Cock of Government Power, and will do whatever it takes to get his Progtard fantasies made into reality. Voting without respect to principles or accomplishments or ability is the least of his concern.

          2. I have principles but I know that the best way to see them realized in politics is to vote for the one of two teams that most aligns with them. If Senator Warren runs I’ll vote for her instead. What I’m not gonna do is have you imply that me gaining principles has anything to do with me voting for a Republican. That’s ludicrous.

            1. Nom nom. Your hackery sustains me.

            2. You’re on a third-party site, and you’re telling us you’ll vote for any turkey the Democrats nominate for the purpose of some greater good, because voting for a Green candidate would be wasted? I haven’t called you stupid before, but your reasoning most definitely is.

              1. Since we have winner-take-all elections, voting third party is counterproductive.

                1. You would have voted against Abraham Lincoln in 1860, serving the interests of slave owners and Confederate independence, while smugly excusing yourself with that same “I didn’t want to waste my vote” crap. For 2016, you’re all too willing to vote for an evil cunt like Hillary, for no other reason than TEAM, consequences be damned.

                  1. Well she’s my evil cunt, and she’s not a fucking Republican. Not being a Republican is qualification numbers 1 through 8 for me.

            3. I have principles but I know that the best way to see them realized in politics is to vote for the one of two teams that most aligns with them.

              Well, there’s your problem.

              You’re thinking in terms of teams, not in terms of politicians.

            4. “I have principles but I know that the best way to see them realized in politics is to vote for the one of two teams that most aligns with them.”
              Even if that means voting for someone whose decisions haven’t aligned with them over someone from the other team whose votes have. In the words of Scary Dave “Fuck your team.”.

        3. You’ve reached new heights today.
          Not only have you just admitted that as long as a politician has a D next to her name you will vote for her no matter what they do, but you have been called out by PB of all people.

          1. I’ve never made this a secret. It’s not because Democrats are so great, but because Republicans are catastrophically bad.

            1. Which is why many of us here will vote for whatever Libertarian candidates make it to our ballots, because this is a libertarian site.

              1. You’re also going to clip your toenails at some point, presumably. At least that accomplishes something.

                1. Libertarians, Greens and other third-party candidates are much more likely motivated by principle than careerism, which is why they’ll always deserve my vote more than a Democrat or a Republican. If I’m ever given a choice between a Democrat and a Communist, I’ll vote against the Democrat, just because I can, and because the Communist might actually do some good for people other than his cronies. You would gladly accept a Clinton or a DeBlasio for no other reason than TEAM, which is why I now feel qualified to call you stupid.

                  1. But there’s a reason for supporting the team, and you’re not getting it. Voting for 3rd party, as you’ve tacitly admitted, is an exercise in narcissism, and nothing more.

                    1. Voting for 3rd party, as you’ve tacitly admitted, is an exercise in narcissism, and nothing more.

                      By that logic, so is voting based on team alone, which you admitted you do.

                    2. You’re right! Except the collective result of people making my choice actually has a chance of accomplishing something.

        4. “I don’t give a fuck what she supported or voted for in the past. It’s window dressing. ”
          No, actually it’s the opposite of window dressing. It’s what she actually put into practice when she had the capacity to affect events.

          “A legislator wins the presidency by taking as few controversial stands as possible”
          Then Hillary would really be doomed.

          “You’re under the mistaken impression that I’m like you guys and believe that a politician’s deeply held convictions or lack thereof matter in the slightest.”
          Right because the President doesn’t have any actual power to put his convictions into practice. Or are you saying that all Presidential candidates are effectively psychopaths who will abandon their “deeply held convictions” for any advantage?

          “She will mostly sign good bills and veto bad ones, ”
          He says after saying that her previous history is no way to tell what she will and won’t sign. So how does he tell? Simple, she’s a Democrat, so anything she signs must be good and everything she doesn’t but a Republican would must be bad.

    4. “It’s the glint of ruthlessness that has always made me a Hillary fan.”

      *in the voice of the two Bobs*. There it is.

    5. “He can talk about whatever he wants to talk about. And if he decides to run, he’ll be fair game too.”

      Oooh, boy. That’s some super duper ruthlessness right there!

      1. It was the look in her eyes when she said it.

        1. So the look in her eye is more important than a single actual accomplishment?

          1. As opposed to Rand Paul’s many accomplishments saying batshit things to idiots?

            1. Or Constitutional things to those who actually understand the Constitution. The idiots are ones like you who don’t understand.

            2. The number of filibusterers Hilldog made that caused a notoriously opaque administration to actually articulate a policy is greater than, equal to or less than 1?

        2. The ruthlessness in her eyes when she pressed that reset button with Russia clearly scared the crap out of them.

    6. Fewer places than her Republican opponent–that’s a given.

      Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ approve this comment.

      1. Harry Truman adds his approval.

        1. Each of his approvals is worth 1,000 of theirs.

    7. The GOP is going to play Clinton saying “We can have this Jesuitical argument about what exactly was meant.” over and over again on Hispanic TV…

    8. Fewer places than her Republican opponent–that’s a given.

      Need we remind you?
      Somalia, 1993
      Iraq, 1993
      Former Yugoslavia, 1995
      Iraq, 1996
      Sudan, 1998
      Afghanistan, 1998
      Former Yugoslavia, 1999

      1. Shut up! She wouldn’t actually bomb those places. Whoever the Republicans put up is clearly more dangerous.

        Now, to get back to how ruthless she is and how much it turns me on…

  19. No more Presidents from Chicago.

  20. Here’s a sample of what we have to look forward to from the media –

    “Grandma in Chief?

    “Becoming a grandmother in the fall could influence Hillary Clinton’s decision-making ? and not just which carseat to buy (though there’s that, too)….

    “”I know I have a decision to make,” she recently told PEOPLE in her first at-home interview since the end of husband Bill’s presidency in January 2001. “But part of what I’ve been thinking about, is everything I’m interested in and everything I enjoy doing ? and with the extra added joy of ‘I’m about to become a grandmother,’ I want to live in the moment. At the same time I am concerned about what I see happening in the country and in the world.”…

    “Clinton provided a glimpse into her life as a private citizen these past 16 months, even dishing on organizing her closets and binge-watching TV.”


    1. The media will do their damndest to make Hillary sound human.

      1. If no one else thinks to remind people if Chelsea’s seven-figure wedding, I will.

    2. dishing on organizing her closets

      *** snort ***

      1. Well, with all those houses, that’s a lot of closets!

  21. With the D day anniversary just passed, I was wondering if FDR would have dropped the bomb, and if so, both of them? Maybe on Tokyo?

    1. He would have dropped the bomb. FDR was not a stupid politician. Had the US not dropped the bomb and invaded Japan taking hundreds of thousands and maybe even more than a million casualties and it later turned out that the country had a city destroying super weapon and the President refused to use it there would have never been another Democratic President again.

      1. Th A-bomb vs. invasion is a false choice. The true choice was A-bomb vs. firebomb. As bad as those “tiny” first gen A-bombs were, firebombing was way worse and killed far more people.

    2. Probably yes, and probably not Tokyo.

      1. Why would they, after the fire bombing there really wasn’t much left there worth blowing up

    3. James Clavell, the author of King Rat, Shogun, and To Sir with Love was a slave to the Imperial Japanese army. Something to stir cream and sugar into the coffee cup with.

      1. To Sir with Love?

        James Clavell = ER Braithwaite?

  22. Dianne Sawyer actually went after Hillary Clinton on Bengazi.


    I don’t see how Hillary wins without the total and complete support of the media. She has no case to be President beyond “Its my turn” and could not survive even the most cursory media vetting. Now, you could say the same about Obama in 07 and that didn’t stop him. But it only didn’t stop him because the media was completely in the tank. If Hillary Clinton has lost Diane Sawyer, I am pretty sure the media is not in the tank, at least not at the same level they were with Obama.

    Also, I really think she hurt herself with the “what difference does it make” statement. Nothing hurts you more in politics than giving your opposition a punch line.

    1. You’re never going to win from inside that echo chamber John.

      What moronic fuck got Republicans in a room and decided their best bet is to exploit American terrorist victims for political gain? (And POWs–let’s just dump them on the pile.)

      1. What moronic fuck got Republicans the Obama Administration in a room and decided their best bet is to exploit American terrorist victims for political gain? (And POWs–let’s just dump them on the pile.)

        Is how this all started. It backfired and then they claim it is unimportant. Live by the talking point, die by the talking point.

      2. Yeah Tony, that is some high end discourse there. You do realize that whenever you start screaming insults, which is most of the time, everyone here just takes it to mean you don’t even have your usual meager arguments? Of course you don’t.

        And if you would bother to read t he article, you would realize Sawyer destroyed Clinton not over the video story but over her criminal negligence in providing security. The Ambassador was her employee and she left him virtually unguarded in one of the most dangerous places in the world. And she knew full well how much danger he was in yet for some unknown reason didn’t do anything.

        Maybe Sawyer has gone rogue and become some kind of racist woman hating right winger but I doubt it. More likely, is that even people like her are abandoning dead enders like you. Not everyone has the appetite to defend the indefensible you do, Tony. In fact, given your ability and desire to do that, no one may.

        1. If you really want to play this game and pretend that the storming of an embassy by terrorists is the fault of American leadership, then you’ve really got to revise your thoughts on Reagan and Bush and decide that Obama and his team were about a hundred times better on the “providing security for embassy personnel” issue. Give me a break with this crap. You’d think you were more personally affected by the death of Hillary Clinton’s friend than she was. But you’re not–you’re just a Republican iPod with the “Benghazi” track playing.

          1. So you admit that Clinton was incompetant, but you think that is okay because of BUSH!!!

            At some point doesn’t it get old to be so single mindedly stupid? I understand you are not bright and there probably isn’t that much you can do about it. But would it be too much to ask that you try being stupid in some new ways rather than just the same old “I must defend any Democrat no matter what” that you always do?

            I know five years of one leftist disaster after another has been really hard for you tony. But my God, you are just getting pathetic. You used to be annoying and sometimes amusing. Lately, I am starting to feel sorry for you.

            1. It’s so interesting how you can just say “one leftist disaster after another” without probably even conceptualizing what these disasters are in your own head. It’s just like a mindless slogan machine.

              I get it. The world isn’t perfect. Sometimes American outposts in shitholes get attacked. But apparently it’s only a political scandal if there’s a Democrat in the White house. I’ve seen this movie before on countless other topics.

              1. But apparently it’s only a political scandal if there’s a Democrat in the White house.

                So point to the instances when there wasn’t a Democrat in the White House, and it happened, and you piped up. Or another Democrat, and point to where you discussed the lack of security.

                I really don’t understand why you paint yourself into rhetorical corners like this. You never asked for improved security for embassies before a Democrat got caught needing it.

                So please, stop. It’s silly and you’re embarrassing yourself.

                Last, and something you never seem to get. I care far less about the decisions made by a guy no longer in power, than by the guy still in power.

                I shouldn’t have to explain to you why.

                1. Admittedly embassy security hasn’t been a strong blip on my radar, just like everyone else in the universe until recently. I’m sure congressional Republicans will get right on funding such an effort.

                  1. The money is already there you fucking twat. It’s not like Stevens asked for more security and the response was “Nope, sequester!”

    2. She McCain has no case to be President beyond “Its my turn”

      I don’t know John, once the “first women president” thing gets going, it might surprise you.

      1. How did that argument work out for McCain?

        And people don’t feel the same guilt complex towards women that they do towards blacks. So the “its a woman’s turn” is unlikely to convince anyone beyond brain dead people like Tony who will vote Dem anyway.

        1. How did that argument work out for McCain?

          Thankfully, not well. I just hope the same goes for Hillary.

  23. It will be a refreshing change to go from being a racist for criticizing Obama to being a sexist for criticizing Hillary.

    1. Can’t we get a gay candidate? I’ve always wanted to be homophobic.

  24. The porn world stepped up and we got Nailin’ Palin for Sarah’s run. Do we get Pegging Sue for Shrillary’s?

    1. That one needed a trigger warning.

    2. Nina Hartley as Hillary Rodme Clinton?

      Might work.`

    3. You should try and get some residuals.. I would actually be a tad disappointed if the Adult Film industry did not get the majority of their film names from H & R.

    4. I’m sure Slick Billy would be more than enthusiastic to help out his wifie in her foray into porn….

  25. Well, she would only be carrying on the tradition of all the previous Caesars,

  26. Well, gene, her writings on the war back in. 2003 were about as good as the average Reason writer so cut her some slack. We all make mistakes.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.