Comments on: Clinton Regrets Assassination Remark

Senator's Gaffe Came As She Tried To Rationalize Staying In The Race For Her Party's Nomination

[bajaan]

WHO HAS THE JELLY? HILLARY IS HISTORY!

[bajaan]

No
t to defend McCain but I''ve actually seen the bomb,bomb,bomb,Iran video and it''s obvious that he was joking.

Posted by Spinster2 at 05:18 AM : May 24, 2008
------------------

Some Joke!!

[terrorislami]

Posted by minnick8 at 11:42 AM : May 27, 2008

righttttttttttttt

like chamberlain got a peace treaty with fascist nazi germany,,, thank you churchill for standing up to fascist nazi germany,,,

just like the treaty hussein signed after iraq war one,,, only to be broken by them to cause iraq war two,,, thank you bush and bush for standing up to these fascist nazi terrorists,,,

just like barbary war one treaty was broken to cause barbary war two,,, thank you jefferson and madison for standing up to these fascist nazi terrorislamists,,,

you cannot negotiate nor appease fascist nazi terrorislam,,, their goal is to subjugate the world under fascist nazi terrorislam,,,

fascist nazi terrorislam
In a way, I am glad that I did not have the initial benefit of all this research. My quest sent me to some less obvious secondary sources, in particular to Linda Colley%u2019s excellent book Captives, which shows the reaction of the English and American publics to a slave trade of which they were victims rather than perpetrators. How many know that perhaps 1.5 million Europeans and Americans were enslaved in Islamic North Africa between 1530 and 1780? We dimly recall that Miguel de Cervantes was briefly in the galleys. But what of the people of the town of Baltimore in Ireland, all carried off by %u201Ccorsair%u201D raiders in a single night?
http://www.city-journal.org/html/17_2_urbanities-thomas_jefferson.html

[minnick8-2009]

Over on another page is an article about Al Quada growing cells in Africa. Said cells are determined to destroy America. I can hardly wait for Obama to go over there, and sit down and talk to them and reason with them. It makes me feel so much better to know that is his game plan to deal with these young terrorists.

[terrorislami]

what about the assasination movie of sitting president bush???

why no outcry over that???

[patriot12436]

beeasy63
I admitted i was wrong about bush and you think you ar smarterr when you are going to vote for obama. He is a bigger mistake than bush. He is a racist and a terrorists supporter at the least. No we do not need obama in the white house and i think you will get a surprise in November. I do not bel;ieve the American peoiple are stupid enough to elect him. The polls show McCain leading obama 76% by 24 %.

[b-easy63]

o be fair, I don''''t believe Iraq was signatory to most of the Geneva Conventions, and though we were some of the original authors and signors, Bush had our names removed from the documents in May 2005, when someone must have pointed out to him that our names on it and our actions were in violation of not only the treaty but of Article 9, of the 11th Amendment of our own Constitution (ratified in 1797) and that as such a serious breach, he could be impeached. This is also why from that point on, he kept petitioning for immunity from war crimes. By our own Constitution, he had committed such crimes--but by not stopping or challenging him, most of Congress also was compromised and therefore, can not prosecute him.

Posted by b-easy63 at 10:05 AM : May 27, 2008


Addendum: It was reported that Bush also requested that the removal be backdated to 2002,to cover the entire time he launched the Iraq war--but in 2005 is when he actually petitioned for and bullied through the removal of our signatures.

[b-easy63]

Not to justify their abrogation of the treaty, but to call attention to our own, which preceded theirs. We threw out the rule book first, so why now castigate them for not following rules we ourselves don''''t?

Posted by brianbwb at 08:05 AM : May 24, 2008


to be fair, I don''t believe Iraq was signatory to most of the Geneva Conventions, and though we were some of the original authors and signors, Bush had our names removed from the documents in May 2005, when someone must have pointed out to him that our names on it and our actions were in violation of not only the treaty but of Article 9, of the 11th Amendment of our own Constitution (ratified in 1797) and that as such a serious breach, he could be impeached. This is also why from that point on, he kept petitioning for immunity from war crimes. By our own Constitution, he had committed such crimes--but by not stopping or challenging him, most of Congress also was compromised and therefore, can not prosecute him.

[b-easy63]

Take a good look--many fault Obama for who he knows , is related to, or attended the same church as--but when it comes to Clinton--her fault is not for who she is associated with--it is from herself--either what she says or has done. So rejecting Obama forces us to find him guilty by association--but rejecting Clinton or McCain requires us only to find them guilty by what they, themselves have said or done. That is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

[b-easy63]

whatithink
I voted for bush twice. Ok i made a big mistake but i am totally against him and his regimne now, but i think obama will be a bigger mistake. I like a ticket of Barr and Paul. We need some fresh blood in the oval office and the senate. Lets vote them all out.

Posted by patriot12436 at 06:22 AM : May 24, 2008


Let''s see.. You voted for Bush twice, you think Obama is a big mistake....You like the ticket of Barr and Paul. By your own admission you SVCK at judgement calls on Presidents so we can surmize...

That Obama must be great amd that Barr and Paul don''t have a snowballs chance in he11.

Just remember, you DON"T know how to discern lies from truth or pick a good candidate (many of us NEVER supported Bush and always saw him for the fvck up he is, was and will forever be) this means no matter what you may think is right--choose the opposit--your brain is not wired correctly. LOL

[b-easy63]

LOL, intellegence estimates are thouands of pages long and NOBODY,,,,INCLUDING the PRESIDENT reads them in their entirety. We have intellegence analyst who are supposed to be professionals make calls on the facts as they are more often gray than black and white and then they summarize their findings.

Posted by Spinster2 at 05:28 AM : May 24, 2008


Actually, several Congressmen DID read the report in its entirety and told the others about what they read. They voted no. HRC voted yes to align herself as a centrist, to support what she saw as the popular way the wind was blowing in the public and to pave the way for her potential presidential run by portraying herself as a strong candidate. Strong--but not too bright or thorough.
The 2002, NIE report on WMD was 90 PAGES LONG. Like Hillary, like supporters--save your exaggerations for people who don''t know how to find links. LOL

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jksonc/docs/nie-iraq-wmd.html

[b-easy63]

No
t to defend McCain but I''''ve actually seen the bomb,,bomb,,bomb,,,Iran video and it''''s obvious that he was joking.

Posted by Spinster2 at 05:18 AM : May 24, 2008


Had Obama made such a "joke" you and many other HRC fans would have blasted it as the height of irresponsibility. Was McCain joking when he said Bagdhad was safe yet need a battalion to get through the market place? FAce it Spinster--some of us have been on here long enough to see your dialog degenerate into the racial slurs and denigration that show your true colors. Obama is mostly unacceptable to you because he is black--you have made that patently clear on more than one occasion.

[b-easy63]

Spinster2,

Saying every German voted for Hitler is like saying every southerner voted for Jim Crow. You guys like fairness and balance when in reference to people you like, but prefer bias and half-truths in reference to people you don''''t like. Hilarious.

Posted by whatithink at 05:10 AM : May 24, 2008


Or...like saying every American voted for Bush and for the Iraq war....

[b-easy63]

Obama better not ''''whitewash'''' justice, if he gets in, though I suspect he probably will!

Posted by stn_sage at 05:13 AM : May 24, 2008


Don''t expect Obama or any other President to impeach Bush--they do not have the power to do so. A President is a glorified cheerleader and pointman for a party in power and a nation---that is all. If Congress does not have the ballz, will or decency to impeach Bush right now, it is highly unlikely they will do so after he is out of office.Why? It serves very little purpose--it also exposes them to derilection of duty charges for not doing it while he is in office and most importantly, whatever he has on most members that keep them supporting him thus far is the same info he will have on the same people, as he leaves. Obama is my pick (I''m an Independent) as the candidate who we may be able to most control and influence as a country--NOT because he is a paragon of virtue or will change anything. Presidents can only do what Washington and Congress allow them to do. If you fail to understand that--take a good look at the Carter admin. He had a Dem Congress--and if you look to see who blocked him and held him at bay--it was his own party. Why? Because the public elected him, not the Dem party machine.

[b-easy63]

I hate to sound like Einstein but why would I call for a drug test to be done on someone who actually cought with the drugs in their possesion? However, that could change if one of them should decide to run for president as they are known drug users like Obama.

Posted by Spinster2 at 04:26 AM : May 24, 2008


OOOPs, you don''t mean that, now do you? Did you forget that Bill Clinton admitted to smoking marijuana in college (but he said he did not inhale, lol) Looks like we would be hard pressed to find a candidate who had not done some sort of drugs. I suspect HRC has too--but unless there is a video--I also suspect HRC would lie to the end about her usage. Funny, how in the midst of finding faults--HRC and Bush supporters negate the faults of their own leader. rotflmao

[b-easy63]

I would like to urge all the Clinton supporters to not just stay home in Nov but go out and vote John McCain.
McCaiin 08
Clinton 2012

Posted by Spinster2 at 03:58 AM : May 24, 2008

???? Why would the rest of the Dem party support HRC in 2012, if she and her supporters cost them the election now? Are the rest too stupid or too weak in your opinion--to pay back all the turncoats of now with no support in the future? If you can be so hateful and shortsighted to punish your party and the other Dem candidate--why do you not expect the same back to you in 2012 if you run HRC again? Got the Bush syndrome? What you do to others you have no idea will come back on you?
If it can be shown after Nov 2008 that the Dems lost the nomination due to the defection of HRC supporters--you can almost bet your red neck, that she will lose the nomination in 2012--because one pay back will deserve another and after all the stunts in this campaign, no way will the rest of the party support the turncoats'' and their selection again. Keep it up--after McCain, you Dems may just keep electing other Republicans just to keep getting even with each other. Even? yes. Ahead? No. Rotflmao

[b-easy63]

Support Hillary, the only candidate with some balls.



See? HRC and her supporters even lie about her gender. LOL

[b-easy63]

Most of you don''''t even remember RFK, so what are you squawking over anyway.

Posted by RobbingHood at 01:27 AM : May 24, 2008

Pull your head out--it goes like this--invoking the idea of assassination happening is just what the far right has been doing to Obama. Now Hillary is embracing it right at the time when there has already been alarm expressed over Huckabee''s bad joke and Trotta''s words. The point (obviously lost on you and Hillary) is not about RFK---it is about what if it happens to Obama who, as a black candidate is faced with this particular threat even more than most other candidates. So to bring it up is very tacky. It plays to the far right, racists, assassin-wanna bees, and as for underlining HRC''s point, it was not necessary. Plenty of contests have gone on into June for her to choose from. The examples she gave were ugly and counterproductive. One, because Clinton was WINNING, like Obama and wrapped up his delegates as a technicality. Two, because RFK had just entered the race a few weeks before and so no one was saying he had to get out when he just had gotten started.

HRC is done--because of how long this has gone on and the fact her chance to win, exists mostly in her minds and the minds of those who support her. Imagination--great thing--until it sideswipes reality. In the real world, it would take almost a miracle for her to defeat Obama--that--or an assassination.

[b-easy63]

Obama supporters in all their paranoia are actually fracturing the Democratic Party even further with their rants. It is a old and tiresome and does not bode well for Obama in November. Hilllary supporters will have a hard time getting enthusiastic about him with all the flaming rhetoric. Obama supporters can be his worst enemies with this kind of feeding frenzy.

Posted by sesanders1 at 12:48 AM : May 24, 2008


Yep--sort of like Obama supporters would have a hard time getting enthusiastic about HRC after her remarks about Obama, white voters, "bitter" comments, CIC comments, Xerox comments, "hope disparaging comments, Wright comments, cozying up with fox news, Sean Hannity, Rove, and O''Reilley, etc.

On the scale of one to 10--better to lose with a candidate who doesn''t stoop sooo low as HRC than to win with one who acts like George Bush in a pant suit and is soo much like him that the right embraces her.

[terrorislami]

hussein should get out,,,

22% of Democrats Want Clinton to Drop Out; 22% Say Obama Should Withdraw
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/22_of_democrats_want_clinton_to_drop_out_22_say_obama_should_withdraw