Type to search

The Clinton Deal

Memo Pad Politics

The Clinton Deal


WASHINGTON — Open letters are the next new thing, so let’s imagine Hillary Clinton sending a simple note to all voters:

Dear Fellow American,

I want to offer you what has always been the Clinton deal. You get peace and prosperity. I put up with endless scrutiny, countless attacks and bottomless mistrust. It’s a good deal for you, and I can handle the rest.

The controversy over Clinton’s emails as Secretary of State is an early skirmish in what will be one of the defining battles of her quest for the White House. Her success will depend in significant part on which aspects the 1990s voters choose to remember.

Clinton’s foes want Americans to recall the investigations, the political circus, and fascinating philosophical discussions over what the meaning of “is” is. Her supporters want every voter who casts a ballot to think about a period when the going was good, when every income group saw its standard of living rise, and when the world beyond our borders looked much safer and more stable.

Round One, the email saga, goes to Clinton’s opponents. Key Democrats outside her circle, realizing how badly this was playing for her, went public to push her hard to come forward, try to end the round, and move on. Many Democrats were thus happy to accept her explanation that she used a private server out of “convenience.” They were willing to trust that the emails she deleted really were about weddings, funerals, and yoga.

They know their party has no real alternative to Clinton. They also share her dim view of a Republican Party willing to pick up any rock to throw the Clintons’ way and remember a GOP that had been happy to push the country to an impeachment drama most voters plainly didn’t want.

It was thus shrewd of her to lead Tuesday’s news conference by assailing the 47 Republican senators who wrote an open letter to Iran’s leadership by way of undermining President Obama’s nuclear negotiations. Pointing to this outlandish move reminded Democrats (and the country as a whole) that she is still dealing with an opposition that scorns the traditional rules and norms of statesmanship and politics. She also gently nudged Obama to remember which side he needs to be on.

Rallying Democrats will likely get Clinton through this storm, even if her responses will not satisfy those who will always wonder which emails she deleted and whether her use of a private server was not only about convenience but also a way of shielding her electronic correspondence from Freedom of Information Act and congressional requests.

But those who say the episode is about Clinton’s alleged sense of entitlement have it wrong. This actually speaks to her hard-earned paranoia about what her opponents — and the media, which in her view so often play ball with them — are willing to do to destroy her. Her mistrust may be understandable in light of the past, but it is profoundly counterproductive.

It would be naive to suggest that being more open with the media always works in favor of the transparent politician. Clinton can highlight the fact that her much-praised answer-every-question news conference on Whitewater in 1994 failed to shut the story down. She also turned out to be right that no good would come the Clintons’ way from naming a special prosecutor to investigate the matter.

On the other hand, she was wrong to resist the earlier advice of then-advisor David Gergen that she and Bill Clinton dump all of the Whitewater documents and let the journalists judge. Gergen has argued that had this happened, “there would have been no Ken Starr, no special prosecutor, no Monica, and history would have been very different.”

Although alternative histories can never be confirmed, Clinton needs to ponder this lesson. To survive the next 20 months, she will have to find her way toward a less viscerally antagonistic view of press scrutiny that distinguishes between partisan muggings and the sorts of questions all presidential candidates inevitably confront.

It may be true that recent days showed she has enemies and harsh critics not only among Republicans but also in mainstream media circles. But focusing solely on them will only encourage her to delay responding to legitimate inquiries and to write off advisors who counsel her toward a less hostile approach to scrutiny.

Paradoxically, the email saga could be highly useful to Clinton’s campaign and her potential presidency — if she draws the right conclusions.

E.J. Dionne’s email address is ejdionne@washpost.com. Twitter: @EJDionne.

Photo: Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addresses the press after attending the annual Women’s Empowerment Principles event at UN headquarters in New York on Tuesday, March 10, 2015. The potential 2016 U.S. presidential contender defended her use of a personal email account for official communications, saying it was “for convenience.” (Niu Xiaolei/Xinhua/Sipa USA/TNS)

E. J. Dionne

Besides contributing to The National Memo, E.J. Dionne, Jr. is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a syndicated columnist for the Washington Post, and a university professor in the Foundations of Democracy and Culture at Georgetown University.

His most recent book is Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent (2013).

  • 1


  1. Dominick Vila March 12, 2015

    Hillary’s e-mail “scandal” is part of a GOP strategy to derail her candidacy, and a convenient distraction to shift the topic from one of the most egregious examples of treason by elected officials in U.S. history. Judging by the time the so called “liberal” media is devoting to these two issues, it is evident that for them anything dealing with a Clinton “scandal” is much more profitable than focusing on something so bizarre and unprecedented that it defies logic. Even though there is no evidence of Hillary’s decision violating U.S. laws, or compromising our national security, there is no question that she should have followed President Obama’s directive with regards to following established rules and processes to guarantee transparency. Conversely, a letter sent by 47 U.S. Senators to the most radical members of the Iranian government, after declaring that Iran was a hub of terrorism, informing our, alleged, enemies that they should not trust an incumbent U.S. President, and that if the latter signed a nuclear agreement with Iran it may not be ratified by Congress, and would be overturned by the next U.S. President, is as close to treason as anyone can get.
    Is the GOP going to use the e-mail controversy against Hillary, if she decides to run? Without a doubt. Are Democrats going to use the evidence of high treason against U.S. interests and goals against whomever happens to be the GOP nominee in 2016? If our record is evidence of what our 2016 strategy is likely to be, I doubt it.

    1. itsfun March 12, 2015

      The best defense is to talk about something else.

      1. Carolyn1520 March 12, 2015

        That’s exactly why the repugs are in a mouth breathing frenzy about Hillary. No defense is needed . No laws were broken.

        1. mike March 12, 2015

          What we do know is she trashed the rules of the State Department that are required by a departing official. Foreign Affairs Manuel, Volume 5, Handbook 4, but to you just another inconvenient truth.
          As I said before, you don’t know what you are talking about.

          1. Carolyn1520 March 12, 2015

            As I said before, what you think is inconsequential.
            As usually you extract only what is convenient for you to use to try and prove your beliefs. Truthiness, the facts for repugnants.
            As I stated she broke no laws and that is fact.

          2. mike March 12, 2015

            Quit regurgitating what media matters spews out. You don’t know at this point if she broke the law, nor do I, what I know and what you won’t admit or ignorant of, is the fact that she broke the rules of the State Department and refused to follow Obama’s directive for transparency.
            We will know shortly if she signed SD Form OF-109, if she did then she is in a real hurt legally. PS: broken the law
            If she didn’t, she just has an other question to answer why she didn’t. If she didn’t, we have another example of the incompetency of the Obama administration.
            And you trust her to be president!!! Such breathtaking blindness, all to get a person elected because she is a women.
            No accomplishments in her career, just an enabler of Billy.

          3. Carolyn1520 March 12, 2015

            Didn’t read. I have no interest in what you think.

          4. mike March 12, 2015

            I guess on your part ignorance is bliss!!!
            Have you got your hands over your eyes, ears, and mouth? You are so pathetic.
            Are you one of those who can’t handle the truth?? Sure looks like.
            PS: I am not going to stop posting to you because of your lack of motivation to face the facts.

    2. mike March 12, 2015

      Dom, New York Times broke the story, not the right.
      We will see if she violated the law. Did she sign State Department document OF-109 when she left the SD. If she did, then she has more problems, if she didn’t sign the document she must explain why.
      State Department Foreign Affairs Manual, Volume 5, Handbook 4, At departure an official must prepare and inventory personal papers and nonrecord material proposed for removal. At departure officials must request a review of the materials proposed for removal. Her own words show she didn’t abide by the rules. Here is more: “Departing Officails must ensure that all record material that they possess is incorporated in the Dept. official files and that all files searches for which they have been tasked have been completed, such as those required to respond to FOIA, Congressional, Litigation related document request”
      The plot thickens.
      As to the letter: I wish it had been sent to Obama with a copy to Iran and Media. As usual from you it is all the fault of the right, baloney. Having said that, Obama has deliberately from the beginning tried to keep congress out of the loop. Constitution Article ll, Sec 2 Clause 2 states it all.
      Now yesterday Kerry says “it is not a legally binding agreement,” so what the hell are they doing? The most important foreign affairs action in years and it isn’t binding. “Any agreement beyond the presidents time in office or long term commitments of US sovereignty must undergo the Article ll treaty process”
      As to your treason canard, all they did was express that any agreement other than a treaty, is only an agreement with the present occupant of the Oval Office. All Obama has wanted to do is to get up and Wave a Piece of Paper for his legacy, look what I have done!!
      She probably will be the candidate of the Democratic party, but at what peril of the party. Is it worth it??

    3. gunslinger March 12, 2015

      Thank you for sharing your wisdom Einstein. Perhaps we could make history by electing the first “mentally challenged” President just to see if the democrats would even notice. You liberals crack me up! Hillary said quote ” after all, you do want to elect the first woman President don’t you”, I guess qualified or not huh. Just like Obama….. elected to make history, not to make sense!

      1. Dominick Vila March 12, 2015

        We already had two mentally challenged Republican Presidents, and the GOP did not seem to mind. One needed his wife to provide answers based on astrological constellations. The other admitted bad intelligence.

      2. JPHALL March 14, 2015


  2. National Snark March 12, 2015

    This “scandal” distracts from Hilz real problem. She is a neocon. She supported NAFTA, China Trade, Wall Street deregulation, Iraq, Patriot Act, NO Child Left Behind, Keystone XL and the Trans Pacific Partnership. In confirmation hearings for SoS she said and I quote “Intervention keeps us safe” when we all KNOW that intervention creates endless conflict. The Hillary email “scandal” is the latest skit in the national political theater of the absurd.

  3. Eleanore Whitaker March 12, 2015

    I guess when the little spiteful boys of the GOP see another massive presidential loss, the stakes for the Koch billions in campaign donations must be pretty high. So..they follow the laws set forth by their CONfederate Mutton Chops Charley and Davey Krotch “IF” they want a stake in the White House, right?

    How one band of semi-illiterate, semi-adult males of the GOP can be so neurotic and so obtuse is beyond the ken of rational thinking.

    Does it not occur to these morons that you can NEVER prove a negative? This is the same BS they pull when Clinton was president and they wasted $12 million on WhiteWater when they had nothing.

    If you compare Hillary’s record to the of GWB, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld, Rice or any of the hot shots now salivating for Numero Uno in the Krotch billionaires campaign donation frenzy, you see they still have what they started with in their Gingrichian era….NADA, ZIP, ZILCH and no matter what they say or do, their reputations for corruption precedes itself. A Phoenix always rises from the ashes. Some men are too stupid to see they are creating Hillary as something she doesn’t want: a victim. Congratulate yourselves boys…You’ve done it again.

    Hillary is the ONLY US female who has been crucified by the GOP at every possible opportunity. Yet, she refuses to stand down. For this, she is to be admired.

    When ANY woman refuses to accept the male bullying in this country as the rule of law, she proves that American women can be badly abused and still stick it to their abusers.

    1. mike March 12, 2015

      Keep trying old girl. Nothing you state is worth a hill of beans or makes any sense. Just more of your gender bias.
      Name one thing she has accomplished in her political life that qualifies her for the Presidency. It sure wasn’t in the State Department other than her many miles in the air. Russia was a disaster, Libya was a disaster. Name one accomplishment that can be verified.
      You think she deserves the Presidency just because she is a women, which is the worst reason in the world. What has she accomplished other than as enabler to straying Bill.

      1. Godzilla March 12, 2015

        Hillary is a Nazi in drag, LMAO! EW is a Feminazi and most likely butt ugly to boot, hence her hatred for men. This isn’t the first instance of “records” and the archives that the Clinton’s have under their belts, it happened under Bill as well. Let’s see if anyone who reads this remembers back then.

        1. latebloomingrandma March 12, 2015

          Rush, is that you?

      2. gunslinger March 12, 2015

        But she would be the first woman in history to hold that office! Come on now lets make history, to hell with qualifications. Hey, maybe next cycle we could elect the first dog that can do tricks but more importantly, follow commands! Ah, making history one election at a time.

        1. mike March 12, 2015

          But that’s how they think, all emotion!!!!
          How about putting up a real women of accomplishment, Condoleezza Rice and combine that with, OMG, she’s Black. Now that is a real combination.

          1. dpaano March 30, 2015

            Condoleeza Rice is one of the war criminals right up there with Bush and Cheney and that whole administration! I wouldn’t trust her to watch my fish!

          2. mike March 30, 2015

            What a stupid and ignorant comment! Not surprised, coming from you!’

      3. FT66 March 12, 2015

        Mike, can you please stop your cheap attack and respect others as you want to be respected. You are calling Eleanore old girl???? Do you know how old she is?? And since when a girl became old? Name calling doesn’t make you look good at all. You should also remember no one grows young, we all grow old, so does you.

        1. mike March 12, 2015

          Well old boy, I think she can handle it!! She just loves than gender snarking!

    2. Joe T March 30, 2015

      Ghostwriter communque’
      parallel time 19:03
      Input Info Liberalism and nuts.
      Eleanore is suffering from a Psychosis in her mind affecting her thought process.

      {Psychosis is a serious mental disorder characterized by thinking and emotions that are so impaired, that they indicate that the person experiencing them has lost contact with reality.}

      {These experiences can be frightening and may cause people who are suffering from psychosis to hurt themselves or “others”. It is important to see a doctor right away if you or someone you know is experiencing symptoms of psychosis.}

      Reading her troubling posts in a public forum with the intensity of her language and hatred.

      This reply to ELEANORE WHITAKER is for her health and our safety for cause.

      Eleanore Whitaker your vitriolic posts are neither rational nor logical.

      Not rational, sans pretext attacking the messenger vehemently.

      Not logical, for the message( post) is verifable from public sources.

      Reporting of an event/dialogue, sans spin is foreign to you; effrontery is not.

      Posts are difficult for you to comprehend and troubling in your mind.

      Posts you attack are canny to others in political public forums.

      Events regarding U.S. politics, terrorism and social issues are verified worldwide.

      Irrational disparaging words refute your posts and do not boaster your point.

      Reflect on your mental state it compulsively makes you “act” obdurate to others.

      Iresponsibility is nonbeneficial to public forums posted by you.

      Succinctly it’s an offensive method you use trying to impugn truth, which is coupled with an inability to express any positive emotions without a spin doctor rhetorical reply form you.

      Continuing “ad nauseam” (like you) to explain your inane uneducated replies of your temerity and unintelligible palaver that reeks with ill bipolar tendencies resulting in minatory statements by you exhibiting personal rage sans cause.

      Pursuant to your passive-aggressive behavior albeit formed years ago in your psyche via physical or mental post- traumatic event you may have encountered “maybe” thru no fault of your own, causing your evidentiary delusions in your state of mind.

      {Opinion vs fact – An opinion is not fact – a fact is not opinion. Debate vs argument -to debate is to utilize logic – to argue is embracing violence. Assertiveness is being confident while aggressiveness is truculent. Strangers don’t interact in a bombastic manner like you. Treatment is highly recommended for you with a Psychiatrist who can dispense Psychotropic medications for your mental (thought process) state that emulates the radical thought process of Islamic Muslims having truculent tendencies that you emulate.}

      You are lost in the weeds of confusion with odious thoughts.

      Have any immediate family/relatives/friends?

      Personal demeanor today by radical Muslims who devoutly follow the Islamic teaching comports a person’s behavior governed by a compulsion…..beheading etc.

      R U an acolyte of radical Islamic teachings or still a Communist/Sociopathy sympathizer?

      Psychopathy and sociopathy are anti-social personality disorders.

      The difference between a sociopath and a psychopath is germane to society.

      One hates people – the other hates them enough to kill them; e.g. Islamic radicals.

      You categorically exhibit radical emotional rage for anyone to ascertain and witness.

      Your intelligence level is self-evident lacking in common sense sans credibility.

      Good luck trying to enjoy a sane life in the chaotic world your thoughts delve in.

      Cease embarra”ass”ing yourself in public forums with rude personal angst posts.

      Posts so rambling and so far out in LEFT field you’re not even in a forum’s ballpark.

      You consider all news reported worldwide to be false regarding Dems/Obama.

      To wit: “wouldst not play false and yet would wrongly win”- Shakespeare

      You are attempting to defend Dems/Obama! Did someone mortify you mentally? Your putative mental obsession to attack strangers is aberrant in societal interaction. Hence, a psychological analysis is recommended. Pursuant to your demeanor the reply may appear on other forums you rant on.

      1. Eleanore Whitaker March 31, 2015

        Another of Little Joey’s rambling, psychotic posts? You bet. A guy who rambles on and on ad nauseum, ad infiniteum proves his mentally instability. Time to get Little Joey to a psychiatrist.

        When you can’t mentally process facts, Little Joey, you show your mental instability. Ramble, ramble, ramble….and little Joey proves he’s a nut!

        1. Joe T March 31, 2015

          Plagiarism is a compliment in vogue….thanks.
          In retrospect, if you think education is expensive, keep using ignorance, sans integrity……ciao.
          Best wishes always……….

          1. Eleanore Whitaker March 31, 2015

            A man like you who was coddled by his McMommy and bossed around by his McDaddy shows all the anger, hatred and bitterness that you invested in what you pathetically believe is “existence.” You are a sad relic of a human being who has no real worth other than to hate anyone you can’t force to your way of thinking…I had your number from the get go.

            As for plagiarism being a compliment…a literary lawyer would haul your lazy butt into court and you’d see just how much plagiarism is NOT a compliment.

            Jealousy, little boy…is the tribute mediocrity like yours pays to genius.

  4. Todd Nelson March 12, 2015

    Hopefully for her, she didn’t sign her form for leaving the state department that states she has produced all of her records, including all emails . Not signing it is only a misdemeanor, whereas, if she signed it, and failed to have given all her work emails to the state department she committed a felony. We know she failed to produce her emails because she said she just sent them to the state department 2 years after she left. Her felony will hopefully get her from entering the race so Elizabeth Warren can be president.

  5. option31 March 12, 2015

    Let’s imagine for a minute that Dick Cheney ran a secret email server out of
    his basement on which he conducted all his official business. He claims it was secure, even though Target, Home Depot, Sony and a host of others that have spent millions on systems have had theirs hacked, but Yet Dick claims his was not and cannot be hacked. Two years after he left office it comes to light that he did this, He then goes through and decides what is his and what was business and turns over the emails he wants to, deletes the rest, and refuses to grant access to the server to a neutral third party. Would you trust that he turned over everything he was supposed to? COME ON PEOPLE!!!

    Then we have her claim the deletes were to her husband etc… well Bill’s spokes people claim he’s only used email twice both when in office as president. And then she claims she would need two phone for two emails??? And her top aids that worked for her had private emails on the server not State Dept emails.

    1. mike March 12, 2015

      That was just about perfect!!!
      Even Mika on Morning Joe basically said the same thing. If it had been a republican there would be a no holds barred attack on his actions demanding access to anything and everything. Those on the left that post on NM, don’t even have the integrity to admit if is of concern to them or the party. Defend, defend no matter what!!!
      WP article “Absence of 2016 competition for Clinton raises stakes for Democrats”. They put all their eggs in one basket and it could very well backfire on them.
      We will also see how State Department Document OF-109 plays out with Hillary. Did she or did she not sign it . if you she did, the dems will really need to start scrambling.
      Do the dems really want to go through more Clinton fatigue like the 90’s???

      1. nana4gj March 12, 2015

        A Republican did use email account that was not gov’t acc’t. Colin Powell. Every SOS before used a non gov’t account for email, is my understanding. But none of them would have been so foolish as to use it for classified info or anything nefarious or incriminating, you think?

        1. mike March 12, 2015

          So what if they did??? That was 10 years ago.
          Nice try!! Trying to justify Hilary’s breaking SD rules and Obama’s directives.
          In 2005 and 2009 new rules were put into effect. Both after Powell left.
          What you need to ask yourself is, why did Hillary ignore Obama’s directive and have her own server? Why did she ignore the State Departments Manual for departing Officials?
          Did she or did she not sign OF-109??

    2. Carolyn1520 March 12, 2015

      Let’s imagine Hillary took us into a war based on complete lies.

      1. option31 March 12, 2015

        Let’s imagine that an attack on on a US Embassy in which people died was the result of a Kindergarten level video, and the “leaders” foisted this unbelieveable scenario to the people AND PEOPLE BELIEVED IT!

        1. Carolyn1520 March 12, 2015

          A full bipartisan committee put this to rest.
          On the other hand Bush/Cheney have never been tried for war crimes.

          1. option31 March 12, 2015

            Obviously that investigation was seriously flawed because these e mails were NOT in States hands or the committees.

          2. Carolyn1520 March 12, 2015

            Taking into consideration, those on the receiving end of most of the emails WERE on government servers, it’s doubtful any of what wasn’t is going to have any impact at all. Although this is what the right would like people to believe and what’s being used as an excuse to resurrect a nonexistent “scandal”.
            Carry on!

        2. johninPCFL March 12, 2015

          Let’s imagine that 33 personnel were killed during seven embassy attacks in the previous president’s tour and that four were killed in two attacks during this one.
          Oh, yeah. We know that actually happened, so it doesn’t matter to the GOP.

          1. option31 March 12, 2015

            So the Reps do something and that lets the Dems do likewise??? This is kindergarten BS. BOTH parties and all involved need to be held accountable and their respective supporters have to help hold them accountable. That would be the adult thing to do when dealing with these politicians and honestly keeping with the they did it so I can will NOT fix anything that is wrong with the governing of this country, it will just lead to bigger problems.

        3. nana4gj March 12, 2015

          And what do you imagine all of the other attacks on US Embassies where people were captured, held hostage, killed, wounded, were the result of?

          Over 3,000 people were killed in less than one hour one sunny morning in New York, at the Pentagon, and in a field in Pennsylvania, and the People were told to believe Sadam Hussein was responsible for it, and the story concocted to march into Iraq with “what we had not with what we needed”, was so believable that the Congress, the UN, and other countries joined in. What do you call that?

          Not to mention that the intelligence before that attack was clear, delivered to the appropriate Administration officials, who tossed it in the wastebasket, saying, “thanks. you CYA’d.” because they were still “cleaning up” after “those Clintons” and didn’t value any intell that began during the previous administration.
          What do you call that?

          1. option31 March 12, 2015

            A coordinated plan to take away our rights. No where in any of my post do I defend Bush/Cheney actions, whether ignoring the obvious prior to 9-11 or the torture or Gitmo. It is all WRONG!

            Very similar thing happened with the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt knew before the attack it was going to happen but ignored it.

          2. Independent1 March 12, 2015

            “Very similar thing happened with the attack on Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt knew before the attack it was going to happen but ignored it.”

            Where do you get your history?? From the same dumb place as most low IQ conservatives?? FDR IN NOW WAY ignored the impending Japanese attack. He, in fact, on Nov 27, 1941, announced to the nation that the Japanese were on the verge of attacking numerous nations in the Pacific and possibly the U.S.

            And it wasn’t FDR who really ignored the attack, it was Admiral Kimmel who had responsibility for our Pacific fleet that was based in Hawaii. It was Kimmel who did not believe that the Japanese would actually attack, because that would put them in the position of fighting the Russians to their west, and America to their east, on two fronts.

            But as it’s turned out, experts feel that in the end, it was actually better that Kimmel had not moved the fleet out of Honolulu into the open ocean. Here’s an excerpt from an article that you need to read a little because you’re very misguided:

            All this confirms Joseph Harsch’s recollection of Kimmel’s attitude. The Admiral had said himself that if Japan went to war with the United States, it might well do so by making a surprise attack on the fleet at Pearl Harbor. Even though General Short had the responsibility for the defense of Pearl Harbor itself, Kimmel was responsible for his fleet, and his testimony indicates that he realized that he had a particular responsibility not to allow his fleet to be sunk in harbor at the beginning of a war. It is possible, of course, as many authorities have pointed out, that the results of the Japanese attack might have been even worse had Kimmel believed war was imminent and sent the U.S. Fleet out to sea. Had the Japanese located their targets at sea, they might have sunk many ships in deep water, including some American aircraft carriers, giving them undisputed command of the Pacific for a very long time. As it was, all but two of the battleships hit by the Japanese on December 7 were eventually repaired and saw extensive action in the war, and U.S. carriers were entirely missed because they were on a mission at sea. Washington indeed withheld the specifics of the Magic intercepts from field commanders for security reasons, but Stark and Marshall had given the field commanders their conclusions based on those intercepts. Kimmel disregarded his superiors’ warning that war was imminent and relied instead on his own belief that it was not— a terrible mistake for which he was duly disciplined.


          3. option31 March 12, 2015

            LOL like Salon is a bastion of historical fact. And why the name calling and insult? Why can their never be any civility towards those that you do not agree with? Is that your idea of tolerance? Saying Conservatives – (BTW I am NOT ONE! ) are low IQ is very close to the same as a racist comment that blacks are criminals, or women do not have the capability to do ….

            Why is it people have to stoop to this level IF they have the facts on their side?

            here is a story from the UK Telegraph


            “”The information, contained in a declassified memorandum from the Office
            of Naval Intelligence, adds to proof that Washington dismissed red flags
            signalling that mass bloodshed was looming and war was imminent.””

            Here is a link from the Institute of Historical Review.


          4. Independent1 March 12, 2015

            Oh come on!! Get off that fake indignation stuff!! And don’t try to sell us that you’re not a typical RWNJ!! Your comment about Salon makes that crystal clear.

            And it’s pretty clear why your so misguided – relying on sites like IHR that are nothing but a sister RWNJ site like the Heritage Foundation. Any nimwit could see that from the constant digs at the Democrats in that fake article on Pearl Harbor. All that article makes clear is that Republicans really haven’t changed much over the past 70 plus years; they’re still the party of ‘let’s see what hatchet job’ we can make against the Democrats. Goodness, what a load of crap!!!!!!!!

            Sorry RWNJ, I’ll stick with Salon giving me facts based on reality over any RWNJ sites you want to reference.

            And FDR DID NOT ignore any impending attack and any suggestion by IHR that he did so is a BLATANT LIE!!!!!

            Here’s more like reality!!!!!!

            Roosevelt’s November 25 statement that the Japanese “were notorious for making an attack without warning” was a simple historical fact. Against China in 1894, Russia in 1904, Manchuria in 1931, and China in 1937, the Japanese had struck without any preliminary announcement or declaration of war. In the first two cases, they had begun the war with at least partially successful attempts to destroy enemy fleets. Both the Japanese and U.S. navies had adopted the doctrines of Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, who believed that great battles between fleets decided wars.

            On the other side, U.S. authorities had been discussing a possible Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor for at least eighteen months. In mid-June 1940, a variety of rumors about impending Japanese action in the Pacific had moved General Marshall to order General Charles Herron, then the Army commander in Honolulu, to put his forces on alert against an air attack. Admiral Stark, meanwhile, had ordered Admiral Richardson, the fleet commander, to put the fleet to sea for a few days in the direction of the Panama Canal. The Navy maintained an “outer air patrol” around the islands to a distance of 180 miles for at least five weeks.

            In November, as war with Japan seemed imminent, all eyes seemed to focus on the Japanese southward advance. Roosevelt on November 26 personally warned the High Commissioner of the Philippines, Francis Sayre, of possible Japanese moves, including attacks on the Burma Road, Thailand, the Malay Peninsula, the Dutch East Indies, and the Philippines. All turned out to be correct. The United States was well aware of Japanese forces moving southward, but on November 7 a Naval Intelligence report placed the Japanese aircraft carriers in home waters. At least one high-ranking naval officer in Washington still thought the Japanese would probably avoid attacking U.S. possessions altogether. Most critically, however, Admiral Kimmel in Hawaii did not believe that war was going to break out at all.

          5. option31 March 12, 2015

            Prejudice = pre judge that is what you are doing with the low IQ comment. You rake everybody into low IQ if they do not profess your beliefs and are what you consider conservative. You do not know my politics so another prejudice comment. The other side – conservatives think I’m a liberal / progressive.

            Overall I am glad you can admit you are prejudice.

          6. Independent1 March 12, 2015

            And just so you’re aware: numerous studies have shown that people with low IQ do tend to develop conservative tendencies, like resistance to change and racism; and other prejudices.

            Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice

            There’s no gentle way to put it: People who give in to racism and prejudice may simply be dumb, according to a new study that is bound to stir public controversy.

            The research finds that children with low intelligence are more likely to hold prejudiced attitudes as adults. These findings point to a vicious cycle, according to lead researcher Gordon Hodson, a psychologist at Brock University in Ontario. Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies, the study found. Those ideologies, in turn, stress hierarchy and resistance to change, attitudes that can contribute to prejudice, Hodson wrote in an email to LiveScience.

            “Prejudice is extremely complex and multifaceted, making it critical that any factors contributing to bias are uncovered and understood,” he said.


          7. Independent1 March 12, 2015

            Sorry, we’re not going to agree on the FDR issue, and that’s part of my point. You say that I don’t know your politics when it’s very clear what your politics are: since coming on this blog you’ve tried to denigrate Hillary, you’ve jumped on the Benghazi fake scandal; you’ve gone out of your way to try and denigrate FDR, arguably the best American president of modern times.

            So don’t give me any of this BS that I don’t know your politics – they are quite obvious to everyone here. You are a RWNJ trying to pose as not being one.

            And yes I’m prejudice, I’m prejudiced against criminals just like 99.9% of humans are. I consider today’s conservatives who support the GOP as nothing more than supporters of organizations like the Italian Mafia. As I stated in a blog last night: Today’s Republicans are the worst enemy that America has ever faced. They’re like a cancer working to destroy the country because their among us – yet they’re trying to destroy us. Terrorists like ISIS and al Qaeda are like viruses – you can clearly identify them so that you can go out and fight them and defeat them with weapons. Sadly, today’s Republicans t hat get into political office are nothing more than gangsters, constantly working to do everything they can to destroy the very fabric of America – destroy everything it has stood for for almost 250 years; and because they’re among us, they brainwash other Americans with their lies, distortions of the truth and fabrications of reality, into keeping them in political office where they can keep inflicting pain on the country with idiot stunts that were just pulled by 47 of the criminals – absolute traitors. Disgusting human beings!!

          8. option31 March 12, 2015

            No we are not going to agree on FDR or some other things. To question her story is not to denigrate it is to question her story. My point is it does not need to denigrate into name calling. BTW for instance I am not against gay marriage I just think the govt should be out of the mate choosing business all together, and to get the states blessing is plain crazy. So if that makes me a RWNJ so be it, but I would venture to guess you’re right beside me on gay marriage. So glad you’ve joined us RWNJs. I am sure we would find more common ground than you imagine.

          9. Sand_Cat March 13, 2015

            Could it be because there’s never indication of civility or a more complex and realistic view from those like you posting here? You get back what you give. You want civility, try being civil. If you don’t like GWB and the people who supported him, don’t repeat their lies.

          10. option31 March 14, 2015

            Sand Cat when have I ever defended GWB or Cheney on this board? Facts please, just one instance! Innuendo is all you have on this one. I have ALWAYS said they are war criminals and should be prosecuted. Who gave them a PASS on their crimes??? Yea the guy in the WH right now. I did not, anybody that can not see – and their are plenty of them – that this while iraq thing was a LIE from the get go is either blind or likes being led around by the nose by the media and or political bosses.

        4. Independent1 March 12, 2015

          Actually, there were 13 attacks akin to Benghazi during Bush 2’s 8 years with more than 70 people dying?? With the Bush Administration doing absolutely nothing to prevent any of them – even though there were 3 at one consulate in Karachi where eventually 18 ended up dying including a diplomat like Stevens.
          Yet GOP legislators and hypocrites such as yourself never said a word – never questioned why this happened.

          Explain please why when the last 6 years under a Democrat president have turned into the safest 6 years for America’s overseas office in the past 50 years that Republicans see fit to continue the hypocrisy of making a spectacle out of Benghazi which is the only fatal overseas office attack in 6 years with 4 people dying??

          While even under Bush 1 there were 12 fatal attacks with over 60 dying in 4 short years. And under Reagan there were 7 fatal attacks with over 30 dying and one fatal attack in Lebanon that ended up with 241 marines dead. And yet not one Republican legislature ever insisted on running a congressional investigation as to why Reagan and the two Bushes were so clearly negligent on providing adequate security for America’s overseas offices!!

          Kindly explain that to us please!! Why is it that Republicans only seem concerned about how security is provided for America’s overseas offices when a Democrat is president!!!

          1. dpaano March 30, 2015

            They can’t (or won’t) explain because they don’t think they did anything wrong!!

          2. Independent1 March 30, 2015

            Absolutely!! Conservatives will never admit to doing anything wrong no matter how nefarious it is. Bush Jr. never once admitted to having done anything wrong during his 8 years: despite the fact that he deliberately lied us into an unnecessary war with Iraq that killed more than 4,000 Americans and countless Iraqis. And was personally involved in carrying out torture against sometimes innocent men.

            Nor did Reagan ever admit to doing anything wrong although acted treasonously by making a deal with the Iranian Ayatollahs to not release the Americans they were holding until after the 1980 election; nor when he put more than 300 marines in harms way in Lebanon in some kind of deal he made with the Saudi’s were 241 of them ended up dying in their beds. Nor did Nixon ever admit to the treason he committed by sabotaging the Vietnam Peace talks at the end of LBJs term in office, It’s absolutely stunning how many blatant nefarious acts conservatives can make without ever admitting they were wrong!!

          3. Joe T March 30, 2015

            Ghostwriter communique’
            parallel time 19:30
            Input Info Refuting political tomfoolery by liberals
            In an interview with National Review Online, Florida Republican Rep. Tom Feeney, who looked into the study and its funding, called the project “outrageous.” “Taxpayers shouldn’t be required to pay for these things,” Feeney said. “If private universities, privately funded, want to study ridiculous hypotheses for political agendas, they have a right to do so, but when you are basically confiscating money from taxpayers to fund left-wing rhetoric and dress it up as scientific study, I think you have a real problem with credibility.” The full text of the study can be found here. The adjunct, in which the authors address some objections to the study, can be found here.

            Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/207712/conservatives-are-crazy-study-byron-york

        5. Independent1 March 12, 2015

          And by the way! The guy who was apprehended as the ring leader of the Benghazi attack has actually stated that that ‘kindergarten level video’ was IN FACT a motivator of the Benghazi attack.!! And not only the attack on Benghazi, but also a motivator of attacks on several other U.S. facilities abroad.

          You are obviously living in la la land!!!

        6. Sand_Cat March 13, 2015

          Let’s imagine that 12 attacks were made on US embassies while GWB was too busy lying us into Iraq to care. Oh wait! That actually happened.
          Let’s imagine people so blinded by partisan and racial hatred that they assume some history-changing evil plot is behind every action of a US administration. But we don’t have to imagine it: it’s going on now.

  6. FT66 March 12, 2015

    I am sad and sometimes angry to see Hillary is not treated in the same manner like other GOP contenders to be are treated. If we want to be systematic, all contenders to be must declare whether they used personal email account for gov. business. If they did or not, they should allow the third party to go and investigate them. Whether it is Hillary, Governors or Senators who want to become President, all of them were working for only one government and must be treated the same.

    1. johninPCFL March 12, 2015

      FL Gov Rick Scott did exactly the same thing (govt business on private account) and the tumult lasted about a day. It’s all about perception.
      Had Hillary taken the lead on the story and pointed out that she was the first SoS to have a govt issued account for use and that she opted to use her personal account instead (as every other SoS in the modern age has) then she’d be ahead of the game. The law that everyone’s screeching about was passed in 2014, and there’s no such thing as an ex-post facto law here.
      She could also have defused the “erasing” storm by pointing out that Condi Rice and Colin Powell also opted for personal accounts and deleted ALL of their traffic using the same logic she first posited: govt emails were received and sent to govt employees, and those emails are properly logged nd archived on those other accounts.

      1. Sand_Cat March 13, 2015

        Don’t think it would have defused much of anything, though you’re right: she should have done it. The people she’s dealing with aren’t fair or rational: they just hate her and the president, and will do anything to harm them.

  7. gunslinger March 12, 2015

    I think it is time for Hillary to make a bold statement about GUN CONTROL. Let’s see if she has the guts or confidence. It could be a defining time in her campaign! Gee, why not?

    1. nana4gj March 12, 2015

      There are many pressing issues that ALL people aspiring to the Presidency should be discussing, but, this is how the “game” is played. The most qualifying factor for the GOP is “Who can raise the most money”. Then, that person is their standard bearer and the game shifts into “Character Defamation Of The Opponent”, wherein even the ability to speak French, or water ski, or serve in the Viet Nam War and come home to oppose it in Congressional Hearings, can be effectively used against the individual.

      So, that is how “they” play the game. We, the People, do not have to play with them. We can use our common sense, our higher intellect, our astute powers of observation and interpretation, our judgment and logic, to fall for it or to proceed with our own sense of what is most important and who, basically, has the best record of working on issues important to us and the most accomplishments that serve the best interests of this country and her people, whether they are in office or not.

  8. Joe T March 12, 2015

    Spies, hackers, covert traitorous actions could be construed in an email situation similar to Hillary Clinton. Flag raising events of Foreign govt’s donating money to the Clinton’s Foundation; for cause….with troubling issues for USA govt.
    Professional IT hackers could easily hack into “any” email account, including “your” email account while you are reading this post…and hack into Hillary Clinton’s govt email acct.
    Astute supposition is that, someone could purposely (then claim innocence) want their
    email account exposed (comprised for cause) to a hacker knowing or prearranging for the hacker who may be a spy of a foreign govt and an enemy of the USA.
    Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction…far fetched you say…wars are won by spying.
    Some people can think out of the box…some trained to think outside the circle! VERITAS.

    1. nana4gj March 12, 2015

      Anyone in government service with access to classified info who uses any email account to engage in communication of classified information is foolish, at the least. I never assumed, through all of this, that she used whatever email accounts she had to discuss classified info. When those business emails are published, we will learn about travel schedules, appointments, expenditures, and other “logistics” of conducting business of any SOS.

      I have no pressing need to view her personal emails any more than I have a need to view the personal emails of any other high level gov’t employee, unless they have overtly presented themselves as “suspicious” for having engaged in sabotage and insurgency, such as those 47 Senators in the US Senate. We know the one who drafted the letter has close ties and actually met with the Military Industrial Empire shortly before or after he sent that letter and had announced before all of this uncommon brouha over a common happening of negotiations between many countries with an isolated country for the purpose of limiting nuclear arms proliferation, that he was bent on obstructing and interrupting any such negotiation, regardless of the terms. It’s documented on video tape.

      We assumed his motive was the old obstruct Obama thing. It could be nothing more that personal financial gain. Isn’t that “special”?

      1. Joe T March 14, 2015

        With all due respect to you comment re H Clinton, 99.9% is always of a classified nomenclature; it’s what the United States of America’s State Dept exists for.

        1. nana4gj March 14, 2015

          Does the CIA use emails for communication? I wouldn’t think so. I maintain that communiques of any SOS do not rely on emails. Data analysis, etc., would not be appropriately compiled by emails. How and why any SOS would use a private email acc’t for SOS matters must be for the purpose of logistics communication and NOT for classified info or discussions with the President, DOD, CIA, or any other high level decision maker in the gov’t. That would not be judicious decision making.

          I am fully aware of the myriad functions of the US State Dept. As I said, sensitive or classified communication of any SOS with of those depts, or within the State Dept by the SOS, would not be by email. Before email, how was sensitive info communicated?

          I cannot conclude, based on subjective conclusions and suspicions, that a person lacks wise decision making for the USA. I need hard facts and evidence, such as a person, or group of persons, such as 47 US Senators, being so foolish, recalcitrant, mutinous, and dangerous, as to send a letter full of erroneous and insulting “information” to a foreign government for the explicit purpose of sabotaging the work of their own government and 6 others toward an agreement on nuclear arms limitation with that government. That decision, compounded by the 5 “excuses” they give for having done this, is the kind of proof I need to call them, and the 7 colleagues, including their Senate Leader, unwise, unfit to govern this US. VERITAS.

          1. Joe T March 14, 2015

            Semantics v facts…
            CIA Director George J. Tenet announced yesterday that he has suspended the security clearance of his predecessor, John M. Deutch, for violating government rules by working with classified material on an unsecured computer at his home.

            The unprecedented action against a widely respected and still powerful former official comes at a time of heightened concern over foreign espionage and the handling of classified information. It was clearly intended as a signal that the federal government, and the CIA in particular, is determined to tighten security….

            “While serving as Director of Central Intelligence I erred in using CIA-issued computers that were not configured for classified work to compose classified documents and memoranda,” Deutch said. “While it was absolutely necessary for me to work at home and while on travel, in hindsight it is clear that I should have insisted that I be provided the means of accomplishing this work in a manner fully consistent with all the security rules.” …

            The Justice Department decided in April not to prosecute Deutch for the security lapses, which were discovered when he left office, when CIA specialists went to his Washington home to remove a classified computer and safe. They discovered 31 files containing highly sensitive classified information on his personal computer.

          2. Joe T March 14, 2015

            We are a long way from demonstrating that Hillary broke laws
            or rules other than those related to record keeping, but it is a matter that requires full investigation considering that Hillary exclusively used private email in her official capacity.

            At a minimum, this episode may demonstrate a willful
            disregard for national security needs. At a maximum, it may be much more serious.

            As Hillary heads towards the presumptive Democratic
            nomination for President, we need to know what Hillary did with her email account, and when did she do it.

            Hillary Rodham Clinton exclusively used a personal email
            account to conduct government business as secretary of state, State Department officials said, and may have violated federal requirements that officials’ correspondence be retained as part of the agency’s record.

            Mrs. Clinton did not have a government email address during
            her four-year tenure at the State Department. Her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

            It was only two months ago, in response to a new State
            Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000
            pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.

  9. gunslinger March 12, 2015

    We need to make history by electing first time Presidents from various classifications regardless of qualifications OR LACK OF such as the following: First woman, first Native American, first Latino, first mentally challenged person, first Atheist, first dog that does tricks, first horse, cat, bird, I mean WTF, if all we are trying to do is MAKE HISTORY! …………………..

    1. nana4gj March 12, 2015

      Right. We began with First Hollywood Actor; first Baseball Team Part Owner; First Paranoid Schizophrenic Who Had To Resign Because He Was A Crook, and they made a LOT of difference. We have the potential this time to elect the First Woman Suspected of Every Crime or the First Man Actually Proud of Sabotaging His Own Country And Colluding With An Enemy.

      1. dpaano March 30, 2015

        I think I’d choose the First Woman!!!

  10. nana4gj March 12, 2015

    While we’re at all of this, I would be very curious and interested, maybe it’s even historically important, to open up all of SOS Colin Powell’s emails and learn about what his instructions, threats, were to march into the UN and deliver a pack of lies and determine in his personal emails, the extent of his personal conflict and anguish with having, or feeling he had to, be a part of that Big Deception.

    Or, those of Condi Rice as Nat’l Security Director, that informed her of all of the intel of people taking flying lessons to take off and fly but not land, to crash into buildings, or, what, exactly, she was doing shopping for fashionable boots when we were under direct threat of terrorism, or, what she was doing as SOS besides posing on steps into her jet, waving all the time.

    1. dpaano March 30, 2015

      You’ve got a point there….would LOVE to see those e-mails, but unfortunately, they were erased or are no longer available. But, you don’t see the GOP crying over those!!!

  11. DEW March 12, 2015

    It’s time for this old “has been” or better yet old “never been” to tie on an apron an start playing house wife and granny as she sure isn’t presidential material. I wouldn’t trust that woman to babysit my dog !!!

  12. Whatmeworry March 12, 2015

    The only way this country will get peace and prosperity is if Newt is elected VP and runs the government. Old Bill had NUTTING to do with the 90’s success

    1. Daniel Max Ketter March 13, 2015

      I agree with you that Bill Clinton was key for the success of the 90s, and Reeegan was the decline of the 80s. The 2000’s success certainly belongs to Mr Obama, he got Bin Lauden.

  13. Whatmeworry March 13, 2015

    The only way this country will get peace and prosperity is if Newt isn’t
    elected VP and runs the government. Old Bush had NUTTING to do with the 90’s success


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.