And as it gets closer to Hillary running the scandals start to reappear "Two decades after her affair with Bill Clinton, Gennifer Flowers reveals they'd be together now if it wasn't for Chelsea and how former president confided in her that Hillary was bisexual Flowers's 12-year affair with Bill Clinton was exposed in 1992 during his presidential campaign She bitterly regrets rejecting him when he last begged to see her and says he's the 'love of her life' Launching a career as a sex columnist she says Clinton taught her everything she knows Bill told her Hillary was 'bisexual' and that he had 'no problem with that' Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rs-Wed-today-wasnt-Chelsea.html#ixzz2fLUlsb7i Of course the sex was only part of the scandal. It was the abuse of office and sexual harassment, denying an employee her rightful promotion and merit raise in order to give the job to Flowers, that brought the scandal to the forefront and into a state investigation. Then it was the plotting cover up between Bill and Flowers and the tapes of him telling her to just lie about it and if they both stuck to their stories they would get in trouble. Hillary helped him cover up for it with the 60 minutes interview along with the other abuse of women in which he serially engaged. And she is supposed to be a champion of women's rights? What a joke. Will the MSM present her as one while completely ignoring her history, probably because they have already ordained her.
The same as with every candidates past history. In particular here her being hailed as a champion of women's rights for instance when her history shows otherwise, she is OK with women being abused if it furthers her own political ambitions. Or her forthrightness with the American people.
I know, it was just a stupid joke. You mentioned the coverup. Remember when Hillary was being questioned over the Benghazi attack, and she was asked why there was the coverup, and she said "what difference at this point does it make?" I should have just said she did it because the Bosnian snipers are out to get her. Although I'm not sure everyone gets that reference.
They won't say a word about it. Obama was asked ONE TIME during the ENTIRE 2008 campaign about his relationship with Bill Ayers, unrepentant domestic terrorist, and the only reason he was asked about it that one time was because the moderator went on Sean Hannity's show a day or two before and found out about the issue for the first time. If a conservative had extremist connections like Obama, the media would cover it 24/7.
the entire GOP since 1995 has been an extremist organization - under the GOP hundreds and thousands of people have died in two overstayed wars - and the best you can do is Obama talking to Ayers
This argument is too stupid for words. It's amazing how the MSNBC crowd can walk around saying things like this without feeling embarrassed. First off, Afghanistan was "the good war" according to Obama and the Democrats. 420 ayes, 1 Nay in the House. 98 ayes, 2 no votes in the Senate. A war that Obama not only continued after taking office, but escalated. Most US deaths in Afghanistan occurred under Obama's watch. Why you blame the GOP, and only the GOP for this, remains a mystery. Probably just an example of mindless partisan cheerleading, nothing more. As for Iraq, all 15 of our intelligence agencies had the highest degree of confidence that Saddam had WMDs. This was backed up by other intelligence agencies in Europe and Russia. The majority of Democrats in the Senate supported it. High level Dems, including members of the current Administration, supported it. http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm Obama takes credit for ending the Iraq War, even though he stayed longer than he said he would, and ended up following Bush's own timetable for withdrawal. Why you blame the GOP, and only the GOP for this, remains a mystery. Probably just an example of mindless partisan cheerleading, nothing more.
That was either stupid, or just a completely random assortment of letters. The wars weren't GOP wars, they were bipartisan. I don't mean bipartisan as in "we got one guy from the other side to go along" (<---the Obama standard for bipartisan), majorities in both parties supported both wars - including the Democrat 2004 candidate for President. You're either just being blindly partisan or don't know what an extremist is. Words have meanings.
But then this is about Hillary and her likely bid to run for President. Lewinsky coming out with her story, Flowers opening hers back up, it's all gonna be thrown back up on the wall. Heck she couldn't win the nomination over a rather unknown first term Senator with no experience at all, she's a loser so why should she be nominated now with all her baggage?
if Gore had been president do you honestly think the dems and he would have approved of a pre-emptive attack against Iraq ?
The Dems did approve a preemptive attack, you think they'd be less likely to do so if a member of their own party were president? What's this, political gaming? And I take it you've ceded that you were full of horse poo when you cited Afghanistan. Now I'm curious how you account for Egypt, Libya, Syria, Pakistan, and Yemen. Do you now blame the vile Democrats, of which every single member is obviously an extremist, for all of the deaths caused by conflict in those 5 countries + attrition?
come on, homey - you're being cynical because you know that Gore would have never even wanted to go into Iraq. hell, he would have barely gone into Afghanistan after 9/11
"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
does that mean Gore would have supported an attack ? no - it means Gore would continued the failed policies of trying to prevent Saddam from getting more powerful - i was NOT against the initial removal of Saddam because we owed it to the Iraqi people considering we pretty much gave a thumbs up to Saddam's 1979 purge of their government. i'm just saying Gore wouldn't have gone in
uh, yeah, Gore would have gone into Iraq, and you haven't provided any indication otherwise. But the real issue is that you made wild-aced accusations that you can't back up but won't retract. You're the called "the entire gop" extremist, and I'm cynical?
Yes............... "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 - - - Updated - - - Do go along the mouthy sleazebag, two peas in a pod, actually three Hillary fits right in there with them.
I have no reason to believe he would not have. It was during the Clinton administration that it became the official policy of the United States to remove him and put another government in place, that did not originate with Bush.
