Hillary Clinton

ml1 said:

interestingly enough, the assertion that labeling someone's argument specious is calling that person a liar is itself a specious argument.

Tsk, tsk, taking the bait and extending the argument.

We're now discussing Hillary.

tjohn said:

ml1 said:

I'm disappointed.  When someone insults me, I really expect it to be more clever than this.

BCC said:

tjohn said:

Darn.  This discussion makes me wish dueling was legal.  BCC vs multitudes at high noon in front of Coda.

You can't get multitudes in front of Coda and if they all come as well prepared as ml1 and Steve, I will have to fight left handed to even the odds.

Really?  I thought BCC pretty well cut you to shreds and I am surprised that you could mount a response.

Thank you.

irony is dead.

I think we can lay some of the blame on the fact that BCC watches Morning Joe.

BCC said:

LOST said:

OK, Let's get back to the topic.

BCC said:

LOST said:

BCC said:

Nothing absurd about it. Now what do you or anyone else make of Morrell's support for Hillary?http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/05/opinion/campaign-stops/i-ran-the-cia-now-im-endorsing-hillary-clinton.html?_r=0

It is support but in the end doesn't mean much. Presidents often have coattails, some times the opposite, but endorsements generally have little effect. 

Morning Joe opened with Hillary's brain fart, followed by Trump ridiculing it, followed by A-Rods retirement, followed by a more extensive review of Hillary's e-mail problems and Trumps bad poll ratings. 

The candidates are busy trashing one another and unless I'm mistaken, Morrell is already old news.

I wasn't interested in your take on the effect of his endorsement but rather what you thought of his arguments. Do you wish to comment on the specifics?

These are, in my opinion. Morrell's principal points:

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.

I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”

I saw Wolf Blitzer in the Situation Room, once.  Imagine the excitement of Trump in the Situation Room, CNN wouldn't know what to do and he wouldn't know which button to press.  

LOST said:

These are, in my opinion. Morrell's principal points:

 

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.


I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”  

The Situation Room? Her whole life has been run based on what was politically advantageous.

BCC said:

Your second 2 paragraphs earned her the title of 'hawk' on MOL  and the last one didn't help.

. Do you think the use of force in Libya was a good idea. The GOP can use the results of that fiasco to beat her over the head right up to November.
The Situation Room? Her whole life has been run based on what was politically advantageous.

I'm shocked, shocked top hear that a politician is practicing politics.  The horror.

BCC said:

LOST said:

These are, in my opinion. Morrell's principal points:

 

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.


I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”  

Your second 2 paragraphs earned her the title of 'hawk' on MOL  and the last one didn't help.
. Do you think the use of force in Libya was a good idea. The GOP can use the results of that fiasco to beat her over the head right up to November.
The Situation Room? Her whole life has been run based on what was politically advantageous.

You're last sentence doesnt make any sense.  

You seem to express that what happens in the situation room is unimportant.

The fact that she is a hawk isnt going to change, but the fact that someone in the know says that she makes these decisions on sound basis' without regard to political extenuation is a very positive statement. 

Its my hope that future President Clinton will make these decisions with the utmost care with regards to sending Americans into harms way.   I'm far more hopeful of that happening with her administration than I would be with ANY republican administration.

I don't understand your total seeming hatred of her, especially in consideration that her general policy positions align directly with social liberal positions.   I would hope to see something that is legitimate coming from those that oppose her so rigidly, not more complete and utter non issue like her f-n emails.

Well put Hoops,

mikescott said:

Well put Hoops,

+1

BCC said:

The candidates are busy trashing one another and unless I'm mistaken, Morrell is already old news.

If the emails are being discussed, and used by some as an argument that Secretary Clinton should not be President, then Morrell is not "old news".  Sure, he's not current in the news cycle, but in an intelligent discussion that's not a reason to disregard his input.

BCC said:

Your second 2 paragraphs earned her the title of 'hawk' on MOL  and the last one didn't help.
. Do you think the use of force in Libya was a good idea. The GOP can use the results of that fiasco to beat her over the head right up to November.
The Situation Room? Her whole life has been run based on what was politically advantageous.

1. You have not responded to Paragraph 1.

2. I was asking your opinion not the opinion of others on MOL who I thought were to your left on questions of foreign policy. As to my opinion when our European allies decided to go into Libya to protect insurgents from Khaddafi I think supporting them was probably the correct decision, BUT it's not what I think, I am asking what you think.

3. Morrell who knows her personally states that at a crucial time she put political considerations aside. You do not know her personally. You just know what you read in the media. She's a politician so MOST of what she does is based on political considerations but Morrell presents first hand evidence that not ALL of her decisons are based on what is politically advantageous.

On a number of issues you have said that you trust the opinions of experts above the opinions of posters on MOL. I trust the opinion of someone who knows Hillary Clinton and has worked with her over your opinion. 

LOST said:

On a number of issues you have said that you trust the opinions of experts above the opinions of posters on MOL. I trust the opinion of someone who knows Hillary Clinton and has worked with her over your opinion. 

I really hope you are not implying that BCC is liar.

hoops said:

BCC said:

LOST said:

These are, in my opinion. Morrell's principal points:

 

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.


I also saw the secretary’s commitment to our nation’s security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision of all — whether to put young American women and men in harm’s way.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”  

Your second 2 paragraphs earned her the title of 'hawk' on MOL  and the last one didn't help.
. Do you think the use of force in Libya was a good idea. The GOP can use the results of that fiasco to beat her over the head right up to November.
The Situation Room? Her whole life has been run based on what was politically advantageous.

You're last sentence doesnt make any sense.  

You seem to express that what happens in the situation room is unimportant.

The fact that she is a hawk isnt going to change, but the fact that someone in the know says that she makes these decisions on sound basis' without regard to political extenuation is a very positive statement. 

Its my hope that future President Clinton will make these decisions with the utmost care with regards to sending Americans into harms way.   I'm far more hopeful of that happening with her administration than I would be with ANY republican administration.

I don't understand your total seeming hatred of her, especially in consideration that her general policy positions align directly with social liberal positions.   I would hope to see something that is legitimate coming from those that oppose her so rigidly, not more complete and utter non issue like her f-n emails.

Her e-mails are not a non issue despite what her supporters claim, and I am not going to rehash that for the umteenth time.

There is nothing I wrote to justify my saying what happens in the Situation Room is unimportant.

Her emails SHOULD be a non-issue at this point.  Plus when will the FBI be doing investigations on other government ees who used a personal server or their personal email for government business (Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rubio, etc)?  

The FBI said what she did was careless but not a big enough deal to charge her with a crime.  Let's compare that to the Bush/Cheney war crimes for instance.  But, she is running against Trump -- so let's compare it to saying the Russians should hack government email accounts.  And speaking of Trump, he has made his personal fortune a cornerstone of his success as well as saying how charitable he has been -- so where are the tax returns to back up his statements?  

LOST said:

BCC said:

Your second 2 paragraphs earned her the title of 'hawk' on MOL  and the last one didn't help.
. Do you think the use of force in Libya was a good idea. The GOP can use the results of that fiasco to beat her over the head right up to November.
The Situation Room? Her whole life has been run based on what was politically advantageous.

1. You have not responded to Paragraph 1.

2. I was asking your opinion not the opinion of others on MOL who I thought were to your left on questions of foreign policy. As to my opinion when our European allies decided to go into Libya to protect insurgents from Khaddafi I think supporting them was probably the correct decision, BUT it's not what I think, I am asking what you think.

3. Morrell who knows her personally states that at a crucial time she put political considerations aside. You do not know her personally. You just know what you read in the media. She's a politician so MOST of what she does is based on political considerations but Morrell presents first hand evidence that not ALL of her decisons are based on what is politically advantageous.

On a number of issues you have said that you trust the opinions of experts above the opinions of posters on MOL. I trust the opinion of someone who knows Hillary Clinton and has worked with her over your opinion. 

I think my statement that the war against Libya was a fiasco is a pretty good idea of where I stand in that regard.

Yes, I trust the opinions of MDs, JDs, DDSs over yours. They know more than I do about their specialties.  I have seen enough of Hillary over the years to make up my own mind, even taking into account the opinion of someone who is her supporter.

You are referring to the historians and Reagan. Sorry, I didn't have time to evaluate the worth of 44 men versus each other and neither did any one on MOL. Therefor, for the 5th or 10th time, I accepted the verdict of the people who spent their life studying that problem. If you choose to accept the opinion of those on MOL that's your privilege, I hope you don't ask their advice for medical or legal matters.

mikescott said:

Her emails SHOULD be a non-issue at this point.  Plus when will the FBI be doing investigations on other government ees who used a personal server or their personal email for government business (Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rubio, etc)?  

The FBI said what she did was careless but not a big enough deal to charge her with a crime.  Let's compare that to the Bush/Cheney war crimes for instance.  But, she is running against Trump -- so let's compare it to saying the Russians should hack government email accounts.  And speaking of Trump, he has made his personal fortune a cornerstone of his success as well as saying how charitable he has been -- so where are the tax returns to back up his statements?  

The FBI said she was 'extremely careless' in handling top secret information and her server may have been hacked, along with saying quite clearly she had lied about a number of important issues - and that's only part of her misdeeds with regard to the e-mails..

We are talking about what SHE did not what others did, and what others did does not excuse what she did.

I will leave it at that. 

One of the questions that gets lost in these kerfuffles is whether or not the government needs to be as secretive as they are about classifying documents. Truly sensitive messages that affect national security shouldn't be emailed at all.  There's never to my knowledge been any discussion of whether Hillary Clinton, or her predecessors or her successor had been sending or receiving anything that truly could have threatened national security. Just because stuff is marked classified doesn't necessarily mean it's really sensitive. Some of the "classified" info was apparently in newspapers before it was marked as classified.

But of course we don't get any discussion of whether or not the government is being too secretive with its documents, and we don't get any discussion over whether or not truly sensitive information that threatens national security is being emailed. Knowing that virtually any server anywhere on the planet can be hacked, why is there any protocol for putting anything truly "top secret" in an email?

Those questions will never be addressed as long as it involves Hillary Clinton. Her critics don't seem to be able to behave rationally when it comes to her.  And the irrationality of her critics spurs her supporters to circle the wagons. All heat, no light.

mikescott said:

Her emails SHOULD be a non-issue at this point.  Plus when will the FBI be doing investigations on other government ees who used a personal server or their personal email for government business (Cheney, Powell, Rice, Rubio, etc)?  

The FBI said what she did was careless but not a big enough deal to charge her with a crime.  Let's compare that to the Bush/Cheney war crimes for instance.  But, she is running against Trump -- so let's compare it to saying the Russians should hack government email accounts.  And speaking of Trump, he has made his personal fortune a cornerstone of his success as well as saying how charitable he has been -- so where are the tax returns to back up his statements?  

They have a system for truly sensitive emails. They're not just sent on a regular email channel. I read about it yesterday, but can't find the link (it was on ipad). If I manage to come across it again, I'll post about it.

This is really the heart of the issue when we keep hearing that Hillary Clinton's private server put national security at risk. My understanding is the same as yours, which is that there is a separate system for the truly sensitive communications

ridski said:

They have a system for truly sensitive emails. They're not just sent on a regular email channel. I read about it yesterday, but can't find the link (it was on ipad). If I manage to come across it again, I'll post about it.

Here's a film clip of Ridski and ml1 messing with BCC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i1_MgGV9SU

hoo-weeeee! you folks have been busy here! I ain't even gonna try to catch up.

I'll just say that I am continually amazed at how the press corps mis-reports the email thing. Just astounding.

but I don't see anyone being cut to shreds   

tjohn said:

Here's a film clip of Ridski and ml1 messing with BCC.

Steve said:

please, just STFU!  You are single handed ly driving people away from this site.  Also, lying requires intent.

Just dropped in to see if this spat had cooled. I'll check back again tomorrow.

ridski said:

They have a system for truly sensitive emails. They're not just sent on a regular email channel. I read about it yesterday, but can't find the link (it was on ipad). If I manage to come across it again, I'll post about it.

Even if you found it, and I don't believe it exists, to quote Hillary, what difference does it make?

She didn't use the government server for work product as she knew was required, so what makes you think she would have used this channel if it exists?

She knowingly sent and received classified e-mails even if they weren't marked.

She knowingly kept top secret e-mails on her server 2 years after they were supposed to be returned, as did her attorney.

She continues to lie about it even after Comey's testimony.

And that's only part of the story.

It is time for her supporters to stop trying to defend her on this. She herself has admitted she 'made a
mistake and wouldn't do it again'. If she would stop the lying we might be able to move on.

meh, never mind.

BCC said:

It is time for her supporters to stop trying to defend her on this. She herself has admitted she 'made a
mistake and wouldn't do it again'. If she would stop the lying we might be able to move on.

I believe that is the royal we.  I catch Ridski speaking like that pretty often saying things like "We are not amused".

For the love of Pete, BCC, I'm merely pointing out that there is a highly encrypted email system that exists within our government used for classified documents. It's called SIPRNet and it does exist. DOD and State both use it for everything up to SECRET. 

What did you think we did, fax everything? (Well, actually that wouldn't be sooo bad, as it's possibly the most secure way to transfer documents these days, but still...)