Issa: Hillary is “not a target”

posted at 5:01 pm on May 12, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

To pretend that there aren’t political implications to the entire Benghazi brouhaha is, to say the least, a bit short sighted. Nothing that touches on this many highly placed political and diplomatic figures could possibly be resolved without some fallout in the political theater. Of course, that doesn’t change the nature of the current investigations or the serious aspects of the information which has been coming out, particularly regarding the shifting story from the White House. Given all that, it’s understandable that the usual list of suspects would be asking the GOP’s chief watchdog, Darresl Issa, about whether or not the upcoming round of hearings are simply a case of Hillary Hunting.

A top GOP critic pushed back Sunday on charges that Republican efforts to investigate last year’s Benghazi attack are designed to inflict political damage on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

“Hillary Clinton’s not a target,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC’s Meet the Press. “President Obama is not a target.”

Issa, who heads a panel probing the assault on the diplomatic outpost that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, said he will seek depositions from Benghazi review board heads Ambassador Thomas Pickering and retired Adm. Mike Mullen, the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

This is shaping up to be one of the more interesting face-offs in this battle. Pickering was responsible for the “investigation” done on behalf of the State Department, which found Hillary Clinton and the other major players completely free of any direct responsibility or any sort of political maneuverings, much to the relief of all, I’m sure. But the arguments being foisted from State are already turning this into a fairly dramatic He Said, She Said situation. Issa has informed everyone that Pickering refused to appear at the last hearing, while Pickering is saying he was perfectly willing to appear, but… his invitation was lost in the mail or something.

Is Hillary a target? Not of this investigation from what I’ve seen. People have legitimate questions, particularly the loved ones of those lost in the embassy attack. But does that mean that she wouldn’t wind up being collateral damage in the process?

Oh, I could do paragraphs on that. But I won’t.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

What does it even matter?
/

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:06 PM

It will be very amusing to watch how the Democrat Media tries to protect her in this mess…

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Issa is never going to come right out and say Hillary Clinton is a target. That would be incredibly stupid. Just move it forward carefully. It will get to Hillary Clinton.

Mark1971 on May 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM

The target is the truth. Of which we are approaching. Come what may.

jake49 on May 12, 2013 at 5:09 PM

Given all that, it’s understandable that the usual list of suspects would be asking the GOP’s chief watchdog, Darresl Issa, about whether or not the upcoming round of hearings are simply a case of Hillary Hunting.

@Jazz — You have an extra “s” in your Darrel Issa :)

But I disagree that it’s understandable, at least in the sense that one would want to really know an answer to the question. The question itself is political posturing. More trying to lay “witch hunt” track.

Axe on May 12, 2013 at 5:09 PM

I forced myself to watch Meet the Press this morning, which in one segment included 2 minutes on the IRS targeting the Tea Party with the remaining 5 minutes of sexual assault in the military.

Issa’s comment was pretty innocuous. Gregory was trying to play the political angle while Issa was trying to seem fair-minded, just following the facts, etc.

crrr6 on May 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Her fat ass would be a huge target.

Corporal Tunnel on May 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Did Pickering’s report reach any conclusion about the talking points and blaming the video? I thought they just investigated the security preparations and the response, or lack of, on the night of the attack.

Mark1971 on May 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

Not yet….

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

OT- Shooting at parade in NOLA.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

The media will have to choose which to back and which to blame:
Barry O! or Hillary.
Does the media throw Barry O! under the bus to save Hillary for 2016??? Or does the media not like Hillary?

albill on May 12, 2013 at 5:12 PM

“How It Looks. . .” right now seems to be very important.

TimBuk3 on May 12, 2013 at 5:13 PM

Issa: Hillary is “not a target”

YOU LIE ISSA.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM

*I meant Darrell. Two l’s.

meh.

Axe on May 12, 2013 at 5:16 PM

YOU LIE ISSA.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM

Aw poor HAL feeling the heat. This is like Chocolate. Delicious.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:18 PM

YOU LIE ISSA.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 P

What does it matter?

Limerick on May 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM

YOU LIE ISSA.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM

So, why doesn’t Obama release all of the communications about the talking points if they’ll exculpate himself and the Hildabeast? Doesn’t sound like you’re too confident in the integrity of your elected leaders.

crrr6 on May 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM

It will be very amusing to watch how the Democrat Media tries to protect her in this mess…

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM

She won’t need any “protection”. Come on, who do you guys have on deck against her? Amnesty Marco? Former Green Card Holder Cruz? Both dont have a chance and you know it.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Issa: Hillary is “not a target”

YOU LIE ISSA.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM

AND HILLARY KILLS.

But then, that’s how you Lefties prefer to play it …

ShainS on May 12, 2013 at 5:22 PM

She is a “high value collateral”.

BDavis on May 12, 2013 at 5:23 PM

OT- Shooting at parade in NOLA.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:10 PM

What else is new?

Might be a good night to listen to the NOLA Police scanner, as there is going to be a huge rap concert there tonight at the Howlin’ Wolf club. It’s a reunion of rap artists who recorded for New Orleans’ Big Boy Records during the heyday of New Orleans Rap, which was also the heyday of violence down there.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:23 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

What’s left of Hillary’s political career was drug thru the streets of Benghazi with the Ambassador she failed to protect. She’s done.

But PLEASE nominate her.

Say hello to uppereastside for us.

HumpBot Salvation on May 12, 2013 at 5:23 PM

“I’m still waiting for answers to just about everything,” Smith said. “I do want to say just one thing, though. I want to wish Hillary [Clinton] a happy Mother’s Day. She’s got her child. I don’t have mine because of her.”

http://dailycaller.com/2013/05/12/mother-of-slain-benghazi-official-to-hillary-happy-mothers-day/#ixzz2T7FEk88Z

She should be a target and so should Zero.

dogsoldier on May 12, 2013 at 5:24 PM

It will be very amusing to watch how the Democrat Media tries to protect her in this mess…

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM

I will not be amused. I will probably be very upset at the blatant lying and a$$ covering that will inevitably come out of this.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:24 PM

“Hillary Clinton’s not a target,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa on NBC’s Meet the Press. “President Obama is not a target.”

Damnit, when will this crap stop! What ever happened to following the evidence, no matter where it might lead? What the hell is this, announcing who is and is not a “target” of an investigation while the investigation is underway?

Will you spineless fools stop reacting to every criticism and negotiating with yourself? This is an investigation. Who announces immunity deals in advance? Only in Washington. What, Daniel, do you think Hillary or Barack are going to “like” you now?

Can somebody get a professional prosecutor in the room to handle this? It’s a joke. It only tells us how bad this scandal is, that they’ve gotten this far with the play-time “questioning” they’ve conducted.

IndieDogg on May 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM

YOU LIE ISSA.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM

A little upset are we?

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM

So, why doesn’t Obama release all of the communications about the talking points if they’ll exculpate himself and the Hildabeast? Doesn’t sound like you’re too confident in the integrity of your elected leaders.

crrr6 on May 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM

No need to. Why waste his time satisfying some tea party frauds whose opinions are irrelevant to him anyway?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Issa: Hillary is “not a target”

Not a target, per se, but a “person of interest” as criminal investigations go. Or, for the more rational among us, a formal suspect who we all know is as guilty as sin, as dumb as the day is long, and as inept as Barky (which is no mean feat).

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Poor HAL….. the fear can be smelled all the way over here in Ohio.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:26 PM

It will be very amusing to watch how the Democrat Media tries to protect her in this mess…

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM

She won’t need any “protection”. Come on, who do you guys have on deck against her? Amnesty Marco? Former Green Card Holder Cruz? Both dont have a chance and you know it.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

You seem to forget that the first time she testified about Benghazi, she was not under oath.

She will be under oath this time. And no doubt will plead her 5th Amendment rights repeatedly.

That is when your Democrat Media will start to protect her.

PS, weren’t you the Low-IQ O’bama Voter who was claiming that Hicks, the Benghazi whistleblower, was a “Republican Hack”? Turns out he voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary, and then voted for Dear Leader that fall and again last November.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM

IndieDogg on May 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM

If he would have answered yes – that would have taken the focus off the hearings. It would have also given the MSM the green light to pass this off as a GOP witch hunt.

We have to be patient and let this play out. Finally this is getting some legs. Let’s not cut our nose off despite our face.

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Come on, who do you guys have on deck against her?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

at this point, What Difference Does It Make!!!?!?!?!?
***crabby faced screech***

All that work, the decades scheming, to put herself in a position to become president and for it to end this way— so sad, so so sad… :(

BoxHead1 on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Why should I? Once again where is that pol that shows Amnesty Marco or Green Card Cruz is now leading Hilary in a 2016 head to head matchup?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Hillary was “inevitable” in 2008, spent wicked amounts of cash on consultants, and didn’t even end up with the VP nomination, which went to crazy Uncle Joe.

Even Bill thinks Hillary’s a hopeless case. Imagine what she’ll be like in 2016, when her campaign song will be a modified version of the Beatles’ song, now called “When I’m 69.”

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

at this point, What Difference Does It Make!!!?!?!?!?
***crabby faced screech***

BoxHead1 on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

ROFLMAO!

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM

“Hillary Clinton’s not a target,” …….. “President Obama is not a target.”

and why the hell not ?

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM

She won’t need any “protection”. Come on, who do you guys have on deck against her? Amnesty Marco? Former Green Card Holder Cruz? Both dont have a chance and you know it.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Clinton won’t be nominated by the dems.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Why should I? Once again where is that pol that shows Amnesty Marco or Green Card Cruz is now leading Hilary in a 2016 head to head matchup?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Funny question. Weird how quiet you became when you asked where the poll was about Americans and Benghazi and I posted some scary shit for you Eh? Laughable.

QUit sweating you’re stinking up your mom’s house.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Issa had an affair with his biographer?

Kenosha Kid on May 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM

So, why doesn’t Obama release all of the communications about the talking points if they’ll exculpate himself and the Hildabeast? Doesn’t sound like you’re too confident in the integrity of your elected leaders.

crrr6 on May 12, 2013 at 5:19 PM

No need to. Why waste his time satisfying some tea party frauds whose opinions are irrelevant to him anyway?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:26 PM

So, you’re admitting that O’bama’s releasing those communications will satisfy those “tea party frauds”? The only thing that would satisfy them is evidence damning to O and Hill.

You really should rub your two brain cells together before you type.

Would you support, or would you oppose, Dear Leader releasing those communications if they were legally subpoenaed?

(Starts Sundial #2)

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Why should I? Once again where is that pol that shows Amnesty Marco or Green Card Cruz is now leading Hilary in a 2016 head to head matchup?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Pretty sure no one on our side has the death of 4 Americans hanging over their heads.

I’ll gladly take the Clinton matchup. In fact I hope she’s nominated.

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Why waste his time satisfying some tea party frauds whose opinions are irrelevant to him anyway?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:26 PM

because it’s not about Hussein,
it’s about the assasination of 4 Americans by this government .

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 5:32 PM

The gop leadershiphas NO BRAINS!!!!!!

…..or……they are accomplices to the destruction of this country!!!

Pelosi would have already impeached Bush!!!

PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 5:32 PM

No need to. Why waste his time satisfying some tea party frauds whose opinions are irrelevant to him anyway?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Why wouldn’t he? He promised to have the most transparent administration ever. But then again, he told Ambassador Stevens he’d have his back.

One thing about Obama. He not only lies about the big things…he lies about the little things. Only the brain-dead believe anything that Obama says.

HumpBot Salvation on May 12, 2013 at 5:32 PM

The truth is the target. It doesn’t much matter if Hillary is or isn’t at this point. But she is on the radar. Everything hinges on the testimony of all the whistleblowers, to hear their stories and see what gets corroborated.

I don’t believe this Benghazi mess doesn’t reach to the very top of the Administration, but time will tell as the investigation goes on. It has really only started, after months of stonewalling.

Liam on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

PS, weren’t you the Low-IQ O’bama Voter who was claiming that Hicks, the Benghazi whistleblower, was a “Republican Hack”? Turns out he voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary, and then voted for Dear Leader that fall and again last November.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM

And I snuck into Texas to vote for Cruz.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:20 PM

Hillary was “inevitable” in 2008, spent wicked amounts of cash on consultants, and didn’t even end up with the VP nomination, which went to crazy Uncle Joe.

Even Bill thinks Hillary’s a hopeless case. Imagine what she’ll be like in 2016, when her campaign song will be a modified version of the Beatles’ song, now called “When I’m 69.”

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

If she even runs a Dem candidate will use that screeching ‘what does it matter’ video and defeat her. She is not a good leader and not very professional. Say just what accomplishments does she have? And what were her qualifications anyway?

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Why should I? Once again where is that pol that shows Amnesty Marco or Green Card Cruz is now leading Hilary in a 2016 head to head matchup?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Thanks yet again for admitting that the 4 dead people mean nothing to you-all you care about is Hillary becoming the second-least “qualified” pResident in history in 2016.

A+

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

The truth is the target. It doesn’t much matter if Hillary is or isn’t at this point. But she is on the radar. Everything hinges on the testimony of all the whistleblowers, to hear their stories and see what gets corroborated.

I don’t believe this Benghazi mess doesn’t reach to the very top of the Administration, but time will tell as the investigation goes on. It has really only started, after months of stonewalling.

Liam on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

+1000

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

(Starts Sundial #2)

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM

I’d expect the same ‘timely’ response.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Hillary was “inevitable” in 2008, spent wicked amounts of cash on consultants, and didn’t even end up with the VP nomination, which went to crazy Uncle Joe.

Even Bill thinks Hillary’s a hopeless case. Imagine what she’ll be like in 2016, when her campaign song will be a modified version of the Beatles’ song, now called “When I’m 69.”

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Hang on to that belief ok.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

The gop leadershiphas NO BRAINS!!!!!!

…..or……they are accomplices to the destruction of this country!!!

Pelosi would have already impeached Bush!!!

PappyD61 on May 12, 2013 at 5:32 PM

Have you ever had a positive post?

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Clinton won’t be nominated by the dems.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM

I’m not sure why they would want her anyway. She’s pretty obviously all hat and no cattle. She’s incompetent as a leader, unethical generally, but not even good at that . . . Her presidency is some sort of ephemeral, leftist-feminist goal, and not much more.

Axe on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

PS, weren’t you the Low-IQ O’bama Voter who was claiming that Hicks, the Benghazi whistleblower, was a “Republican Hack”? Turns out he voted for Hillary in the 2008 primary, and then voted for Dear Leader that fall and again last November.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:27 PM

And I snuck into Texas to vote for Cruz.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

Thanks for admitting that you were.

A+

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:35 PM

Issa is never going to come right out and say Hillary Clinton is a target. That would be incredibly stupid. Just move it forward carefully. It will get to Hillary Clinton.
Mark1971 on May 12, 2013 at 5:08 PM

Besides, she’s shown tremendous courage before when under real fire at the Tuzla airport in Bosnia.

whatcat on May 12, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Hang on to that belief ok.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

BTW, who cares about 2016? To many things are coming out now that will kill the dems chances in 2014.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:37 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Are you talking about Pol Pot or a poll?
They can have O and Hillary by the short and nasties if they play this right then go for the jugular.

docflash on May 12, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Say just what accomplishments does she have? And what were her qualifications anyway?

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

I’ve been asking Libs since 1999 what her “qualifications” were to be the Junior Senator from New York.

That was in the last century, and yet still not 1 Leftist has even dared to answer my simple question. Because they all know that they cannot.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Clinton won’t be nominated by the dems.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Not even after she pre-empts Hussein and comes out of the closet first ?
C’mon, the first lezbeeaan President …..who wouldn’t want that ?
Plus she has combat experience, is a mean drunk and has killed a few good men and women in her journey so far. And she is a congenital liar .
She is a perfect Democrat :O

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Pretty sure no one on our side has the death of 4 Americans hanging over their heads.

I’ll gladly take the Clinton matchup. In fact I hope she’s nominated.

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands. Remember “they will welcome us as liberators”? How well did that turn out?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Hillary was “inevitable” in 2008, spent wicked amounts of cash on consultants, and didn’t even end up with the VP nomination, which went to crazy Uncle Joe.

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Hang on to that belief ok.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Not “belief” about what happened to her in 2008. Fact.

Still waiting for you to tell us what made her qualified to be the Junior US Senator from New York.

(Goes out to Sundial Farm and starts Sundial #3).

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands. Remember “they will welcome us as liberators”? How well did that turn out?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

aaaannnnddddd.. we’re back to Bush, Cheney and Halliburton !!!

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Thanks yet again for admitting that the 4 dead people mean nothing to you-all you care about is Hillary becoming the second-least “qualified” pResident in history in 2016.

A+

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

The death of thousands of American Soldiers don’t really mean anything to your side either so what is your point?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Hang on to that belief ok.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:34 PM

What an idiot. You don’t think someone else will play hardball with Hillary JUST LIKE Obama did? You’re truly dumber than you appear.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:41 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

So you admit it. Thanks for letting us know.

You’re flailing again.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Even Bill thinks Hillary’s a hopeless case. Imagine what she’ll be like in 2016, when her campaign song will be a modified version of the Beatles’ song, now called “When I’m 69.”
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on May 12, 2013 at 5:28 PM

Considering her Benghazi perjur…er…testimony, I think the more appropriate Beatles campaign song line would be from “Strawberry Fields Forever”:

“It doesn’t matter much to me”.

whatcat on May 12, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

In the 8 years (Democrat) Bill Clinton was our Commander in Chief, more members of the US military died in non combat than have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Your side has their blood on their hands.

See, 2 can play your silly game.

Z-

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:42 PM

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Don’t forget Soros owns a big stake in Halliburton.

docflash on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands. Remember “they will welcome us as liberators”? How well did that turn out?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

You have no standing to speak on behalf of our brave armed forces members. Even though the purple fingers did welcome us as liberators, you have no voice in this because you and your kind are the cause of roadblocks to peace and liberation of the oppressed.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Clinton won’t be nominated by the dems.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM

On like your side who constantly shoves candidates their base hates down their throats, my side does the exact opposite.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

The death of thousands of American Soldiers don’t really mean anything to your side either so what is your point?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

My 5:42 PM post sends you packing. Thanks for playing!

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands. Remember “they will welcome us as liberators”? How well did that turn out?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Our side?

/

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…” — Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do” — Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

“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 … 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.” — Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…” — Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” –President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” –Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” –Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.” Letter to President Clinton, signed by: — Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.” -Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.” — Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” Letter to President Bush, Signed by: — Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.” — Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

Whose side?

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:44 PM

The death of thousands of American Soldiers don’t really mean anything to your side either so what is your point?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:40 PM

So what your side is telling you to believe is that because the other side killed thousands of American soldiers , Hussein should get that opportunity too ? Is this all about body count for your side ? Hussein wants to surpass Bush on that statistic ?
How morbid , but I’m not surprised one bit .

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 5:45 PM

HAL’s diverting again…..

ahhhh delicious.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Interesting – and highly uncommon – decision by NBC to have Amb. Pickering right there next to Issa during his interview. A weakly transparent attempt at intimidation.

aquaviva on May 12, 2013 at 5:45 PM

Clinton won’t be nominated by the dems.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Unlike your side who constantly shoves candidates their base hates down their throats, my side does the exact opposite.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

FIMS

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:45 PM

In the 8 years (Democrat) Bill Clinton was our Commander in Chief, more members of the US military died in non combat than have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Your side has their blood on their hands.

See, 2 can play your silly game.

Z-

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:42 PM

He likely calls Vietnam ‘Nixon’s War’.

Liam on May 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Good thing no Dems voted to fun the Iraq war. Or if they did, it’s because they were lied to. RIght? Luckily conditions in Iraq are much improved since Zero pulled the troops, to concentrate on the “good war” in Afghanistan. ALl in all a huge success. Give the man a Peace Prize.

Kenosha Kid on May 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Pretty sure no one on our side has the death of 4 Americans hanging over their heads.

I’ll gladly take the Clinton matchup. In fact I hope she’s nominated.

gophergirl on May 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands. Remember “they will welcome us as liberators”? How well did that turn out?

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

http://www.flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/voted4war.html

Your side too, b!tch. Blood on all their hands. And, your senate troll boy, Harry Reid, had no problem saying, as our men and women fought in the field, that “This war is lost”. Shameful pos crapweasel. That’s what your side is full of, sh!tbag.

AllahsNippleHair on May 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

Poor HAL. Desperation. Sweeeeeeet.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

On like your side who constantly shoves candidates their base hates down their throats, my side does the exact opposite.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Really? Your Senate Majority Leader said the US had lost the Iraq War while it was still being fought. Your DNC Chairman at the time of the original 9/11 accused Bush of letting it happen. And your Academy-Award winning filmmaker got that award for claiming the same thing.

You really need 2 shovels, Kid. One for each hand.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Poor HAL wants to talk about ANYTHING but Benghazi.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Don’t forget Soros owns a big stake in Halliburton.

docflash on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Sssshhhhh….** lowers voice really low **
they don’t tell this to the trolls
:O

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Yea but your side has the blood of thousands of American soldiers on their hands.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:38 PM

In the 8 years (Democrat) Bill Clinton was our Commander in Chief, more members of the US military died in non combat than have died in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Your side has their blood on their hands.

See, 2 can play your silly game.

Z-

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:42 PM

I thought he was referring to The One there.

70% of U.S. Military Fatalities in 11-Year Afghan War Have Occurred on Obama’s Watch

whatcat on May 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Can somebody get a professional prosecutor in the room to handle this? .

IndieDogg on May 12, 2013 at 5:25 PM

Rudy Guiliani to the white courtesy phone, please.

katy the mean old lady on May 12, 2013 at 5:48 PM

Unlike your side who constantly shoves candidates their base hates down their throats, my side does the exact opposite.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Whaaaat? Probably a Harvard grad.

Vince on May 12, 2013 at 5:48 PM

IRS & Benghazi: Not about Right v Left, but Right v Wrong.

Resist We Much on May 12, 2013 at 5:49 PM

Poor HAL wants to talk about ANYTHING but Benghazi.
CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Jay Carney-Baghdad Bob Panic Syndrome has set in amongst the left.

whatcat on May 12, 2013 at 5:50 PM

He likely calls Vietnam ‘Nixon’s War’.

Liam on May 12, 2013 at 5:46 PM

What exactly id Lyndon Johnson mean when he exhorted soldiers to “Nail the coonskin to the wall” in Vietnam?

Kenosha Kid on May 12, 2013 at 5:50 PM

This HAL person is really getting tiresome. Every single thread he brings up the same tired old tropes. Iraq, Green Card, Boooosh…blah blah blah. Very similar to “non”partisan. Maybe we should set them up for a date, they both are in love with the same person. Or maybe a cage match with them and Reggie to see who wins the right to climb up Oblowme’s azz.

BeachBum on May 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

“There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm’s way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam’s leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn’t believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership. And I am talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo, where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States, and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations — they would not. I’m happy that, in the face of such horrible suffering, we did act.”

Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)

Bloody Hillary.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

“Hillary Clinton’s not a target,” said House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa

Listen closely. The sound of the GOP already ceding the 2016 presidential election.

Yeah. Yeah. I know. The target is the truth. Whatever. But you don’t have to think this through very far to realize how horrified the GOP is to discover what it’s holding here, and how very much it would like all of this to quietly go away. They will betray us.

bofh on May 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

YOU LIE ISSA.

HotAirLib on May 12, 2013 at 5:14 PM

A vigorous five mile walk will do more good for an unhappy, but otherwise healthy adult than all the medicine and psychology in the world. – Paul Dudley White

RickB on May 12, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Don’t forget Soros owns a big stake in Halliburton.

docflash on May 12, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Sssshhhhh….** lowers voice really low **
they don’t tell this to the trolls
:O

burrata on May 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Soros bought $61 million worth of Halliburton in either 2006 or 2007.

They also don’t tell the trolls about how Bill Clinton gave Halliburton no-bid contracts, and that O’bama Himself was also about to give Halli one when we were leaving Iraq. For some reason that one never happened.

And they totally ignore the decades-long marriage between Democrat President Lyndon Johnson and Halliburton subsidiary KBR.

Del Dolemonte on May 12, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Jay Carney-Baghdad Bob Panic Syndrome has set in amongst the left.

whatcat on May 12, 2013 at 5:50 PM

Oh no doubt. They’ve come to the realization that Benghazi has legs and they can no longer pretend it is not an issue.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:52 PM

The more details come out about this Administration’s culpability in this Muslim Terrorist Attack, the more out of control our Trolls will get.

kingsjester on May 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM

I don’t believe this Benghazi mess doesn’t reach to the very top of the Administration… It has really only started, after months of stonewalling.

Liam on May 12, 2013 at 5:33 PM

The doo-doo’s gonna hit the fan big time when the gun running aspects of Benghazi come out.

petefrt on May 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Let’s not forget the two people with the most to gain from the demise of Hil: Joke Biden and John F’n Kerry.

They both want to be president desperately, and hearing Hil referred to as ‘inevitable’ in 2016 has to be as grating as listening to Susan Collins.

If either of them can slide a knife into Hil’s back with plausible deniability, they just may take that opportunity.

slickwillie2001 on May 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM

What dimwit HAL doesn’t get is that Hillary lost partially due to her support of the war. What an idiot.

CW on May 12, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3