She’s lying her ass off.

Doughboy on January 23, 2013 at 9:41 AM

I could tell that much with the sound turned off. Her lips were moving. That’s always a sure “tell” with the Clintons.

Hillary Clinton’s entire political and legal career has been a consistent path from mediocrity to failure to disaster while simultaneously suffering no tangible consequences…

RobertE on January 23, 2013 at 10:42 AM

Thread winner.

Del Dolemonte on January 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Seriously? This is your gripe?

You tell me, what qualifications was she required to have to run for Senate from New York.

Don’t tell me what YOU think she needed, tell me what was required of her and whether she met the qualifications.

And then get some treatment for that bad case of anal-retentive syndrome you have.

chumpThreads on January 23, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Translated: “I still can’t answer Del’s simple question!”

Game, Set, and Match. You make it too easy.

H

A law needs to be passed stating that…

Those administration officials who receive a valid FOI request have 3 months to respond or all administration officials up the reporting chain beginning at the employee receiving the request and ending at the Department head shall be individually fined 1% of their gross salary each month thereafter until the information is provided. Fines shall be deposited into the general fund for debt repayment.

It’s about time laws governing our officials had some real teeth!

So “she met the minimum requirements” is what passes for ‘exemplary’ in your playbook, then – got it. lol

Thanks for proving you have no achievements to hang your glowing comments of praise on. We knew your were a ass-licking sycophant, thanks for documenting it!

Midas on January 23, 2013 at 11:14 AM

Where did I say “exemplary”?

I always knew you were a lying, dishonest hack.
Thanks for documenting it.

chumpThreads on January 23, 2013 at 10:43 AM

So “she met the minimum requirements” is what passes for ‘exemplary’ in your playbook, then – got it. lol

Thanks for proving you have no achievements to hang your glowing comments of praise on. We knew your were a ass-licking sycophant, thanks for documenting it!

It’s going to be the battle between the popular hazy image of Hillary Clinton as the leading American woman in politics, and the reality of her bungled tenure at State

I’m sure the MSM will BE REAL HAZY on her accomplishments. Just as they’ve been HAZY on Barry’s.

Does Huma get all the urgent emails that you get? Who was her first phonecall to?

Tired of the Clinton reframing and false indignation when asked to answer factual histories.

And dork Dem senators: they are holding the funds until they get the answers they want about Benghazi. Additional incentive is Hillary’s own political aspirations so she will testify to say that she did. But she has given exactly no answers. Zero.

The Donald Wants to Buy The New York Times… http://drudge.tw/10RNaai

It’s because you were gunrunning and had to have the coastal locale. Notice early in her statement she referred to Benghazi, not by name, but as “The Coast”. It was the location that mattered.

And if I hear one more time about Mali and Algeria I’m going to lose it. Not relevant, Dissembler in Chief.

There is no constitutional issue – we can just get someone to Photoshop you Hawaiian birth certificate.

/ducks

CorporatePiggy on January 23, 2013 at 10:39 AM

LMFAO!

Speaking of Birtherism. Guess who was one of the first?

Hint: Apartment is a racist dog-whistle.

BBWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

“What qualified Hillary to become the Junior Senator from New York, a state that she had never lived in until she carpetbagged her way into the NYC suburbs, solely to run for that office?”
Del Dolemonte on January 23, 2013 at 10:29 AM

Seriously? This is your gripe?

You tell me, what qualifications was she required to have to run for Senate from New York.

Don’t tell me what YOU think she needed, tell me what was required of her and whether she met the qualifications.

And then get some treatment for that bad case of anal-retentive syndrome you have.

she has kept us engaged without going to war.

chumpThreads on January 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM

Who do you think, after Susan Rice and Samantha Power, was the 3rd Witch of Libya?

The Three Witches of Libya

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), U.S. Senate debate over going to war against Iraq, 10 October 2002

As a strong, competent woman, I hereby throw my hat into the 2016 ring (we’ll work out the Constitutional issues later).

I’d vote for you a couple of times.

There is no constitutional issue – we can just get someone to Photoshop you Hawaiian birth certificate.

/ducks

Reset embarrassment? A glitch, get over it.

chumpThreads on January 23, 2013 at 10:20 AM

The New Republic, 2009:

Michael Crowley is a senior editor of The New Republic.

The hallmark of Hillary’s tenure as America’s top diplomat has hardly been robotic precision. It has instead been a curious propensity for public statements that require amendment, clarification, and implicit retraction–as illustrated, most recently, by comments she made about Israeli settlement policy that reportedly baffled even her own aides.

-snip-

The first sign that Hillary’s lips might be surprisingly loose came on her very first official trip–a swing through Asia in February. Aboard her government jet, Clinton spoke with reporters about prospects for the replacement of the ailing North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il. The longtime diplomatic writers were startled; Clinton had broken what the Times called “an informal taboo” on the subject, which, tellingly, neither she nor top Obama officials seem to have publicly revisited since. More dramatically, on that same trip, Hillary unexpectedly dismissed the role of human rights in U.S.-China relations. Such concerns, she explained, “can’t interfere” with issues like global warming and the economy. “[W]e pretty much know what [Chinese leaders] are going to say” anyway, she shrugged. Human rights advocates were appalled, and State Department officials traveling with her reportedly debated whether she had been refreshingly candid or had committed a colossal blunder.

-snip-

Clinton’s August trip to Africa, which featured a town-hall-style meeting in Congo. Tired and frayed after several days of travel on the continent, Hillary lost her patience with a questioner who asked her husband’s view of an obscure World Bank policy. “My husband is not secretary of state, I am,” she snapped. “I am not going to be channeling my husband.” Clinton’s aides initially suggested that a mistranslation was to blame–that, in fact, the questioner had inquired about Barack Obama’s views, not Bill Clinton’s. That turned out not to be the case.

-snip-

Speaking again about North Korea, Clinton likened the country to an “unruly teenager” who throws periodic tantrums. While her observation is correct, the language was jarring coming from a government official–particularly when it emerged that Bill Clinton was, at that same time, arranging a visit to Pyongyang to accept the release of two detained American journalists. Then there was her recent visit to Pakistan. While there, Hillary admirably parried anti-American abuse in public forums, but the pressure pushed her into a comment that undercut her mission. During one meeting with several ornery Pakistani journalists, Clinton “appeared to get annoyed,” as one local paper wrote, and snapped that she found it “hard to believe that nobody in your government knows where [Al Qaeda leaders] are and couldn’t get them if they really wanted to.” After her rejoinder got a testy reception in the Pakistani media, Hillary “carefully scaled back her comments,” as the Associated Press wrote, insisting that she didn’t believe Pakistan harbors terrorists.

-snip-

Clinton revealed at a press conference that Obama’s call for an Israeli settlement freeze included any “natural growth” within existing settlements. The circumstances remain murky, but two sources with detailed knowledge of the U.S.-Israeli relationship say that the Obama team was not yet prepared to make public this departure from Bush-era policy. Rather than leave his secretary of state twisting in the wind, says one of the sources, Obama wound up repeating her formulation a few days later, touching off months of tension with the Israelis.

-snip-

The second flap occurred on November 1 in Jerusalem, where Clinton abruptly reversed course on settlements–this time saying that a proposal by the Netanyahu government that falls short of the freeze Obama has sought nevertheless amounts to an “unprecedented” concession by Israel. The formulation–which infuriated Arab leaders and made it seem that Obama had surrendered to Netanyahu–had not been endorsed by the White House, which was not pleased with the statement. The Times subsequently reported that even Clinton’s aides considered the remark poorly worded. “Our leading diplomat is very undiplomatic,” says a Democratic official with a Jewish organization in Washington. “Sometimes that’s helpful, sometimes it’s not.”

I take it all back, chump. She’s been a Genius as SOS!