Hillary Clinton Due To Step Down As Secretary Of State Within 'days'

[chuckd]

OK, I guess John Kerry won't replace Hillary at state. That would open up a probability of republican Scott Brown taking his senate seat away. Not acceptable and not worth it. I think Kerry is underrated though but I'm biased because I experienced his leadership personally in his Vietnam war protest days. Oh well.

Scott Brown couldn't get elected Dog Catcher now. Rice to State, Kerry to Defense, Duval Patrick would likely win any special election.

Not so sure Brown wouldn't be a threat but assuming the risk is worth it, when is a MAN going to get a chance at State? I like Kerry!

With all of you being in such a dither over Obama, I guess you missed the news that the famous Pocahontas wanna-be, Elizabeth Warren, defeated Scott Brown in the MA Senate race.

No great loss...she was pretending to be an American Indian and he was pretending to be a Republican.

[Jingthing]

OK, I guess John Kerry won't replace Hillary at state. That would open up a probability of republican Scott Brown taking his senate seat away. Not acceptable and not worth it. I think Kerry is underrated though but I'm biased because I experienced his leadership personally in his Vietnam war protest days. Oh well.

Scott Brown couldn't get elected Dog Catcher now. Rice to State, Kerry to Defense, Duval Patrick would likely win any special election.

Not so sure Brown wouldn't be a threat but assuming the risk is worth it, when is a MAN going to get a chance at State? I like Kerry!

With all of you being in such a dither over Obama, I guess you missed the news that the famous Pocahontas wanna-be, Elizabeth Warren, defeated Scott Brown in the MA Senate race.

No great loss...she was pretending to be an American Indian and he was pretending to be a Republican.

I am well aware. The thing we are talking about is obviously what will happen to the race for Kerry's senate seat if he moves to State or Defense. There would be a NEW race for the NEW opening which Brown may indeed go for. Congrats to Senator Warren! Edited November 13, 2012 by Jingthing

[Exsexyman]

I guess we can take the David Petraeus option off the table.

There must be one big hitter out there who is qualified for the role. Perhaps a statesman widely versed in world affairs, and popular wherever he goes. Above all, and most importantly, someone who can be relied upon to keep his John Thomas zipped away in his trousers, and would never allow himself to become embroiled in any kind of extra marital sexual scandal. I nominate Bill Clinton. Oh, hang on a minute ---------

[spidermike007]

I believe there is a chance that Obama may either have to resign, or will be impeached over benghazi. It could be bigger than Watergate. It is an enormous cover up. I voted for Obama the 1st time, but he cannot be trusted.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Thaivisa Connect App

[Jingthing]

Back to the topic, based on President Obama's press conference, it is now looking very probable that he will pick Susan Rice for his new Secretary of State to replace Clinton (and Kerry as Secretary of Defense).

[keemapoot]

Back to the topic, based on President Obama's press conference, it is now looking very probable that he will pick Susan Rice for his new Secretary of State to replace Clinton (and Kerry as Secretary of Defense).

Yeah, and he's warned Republicans to back off opposing her nomination or they will deal with him. He's not taking any nonsense on this one.

[Jingthing]

Yes, Obama's got his MOJO back, and it is good. He needs to do much more slapping around of the tea people congress this term if anything is going to be accomplished for the country.

[mania]

He needs to do much more slapping around of the tea people congress this term if anything is going to be accomplished for the country.

Actually I think there needs more across the aisle clapping rather than slapping if anything is to be accomplished for the country.

Yes before I get jumped that works both ways

[Chicog]

I believe there is a chance that Obama may either have to resign, or will be impeached over benghazi. It could be bigger than Watergate. It is an enormous cover up. I voted for Obama the 1st time, but he cannot be trusted.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Thaivisa Connect App

You are watching too much Fox News.

[Jingthing]

I believe there is a chance that Obama may either have to resign, or will be impeached over benghazi. It could be bigger than Watergate. It is an enormous cover up. I voted for Obama the 1st time, but he cannot be trusted.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Thaivisa Connect App

You are watching too much Fox News.

You would think their bubble would have burst after the hilarious meltdown of Rove and company during the election, but they appear incurable.

[keemapoot]

I believe there is a chance that Obama may either have to resign, or will be impeached over benghazi. It could be bigger than Watergate. It is an enormous cover up. I voted for Obama the 1st time, but he cannot be trusted.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Thaivisa Connect App

You are watching too much Fox News.

You would think their bubble would have burst after the hilarious meltdown of Rove and company during the election, but they appear incurable.

[Scott]

I think some other bubbles are going to be burst soon. This thread is about Clinton. Fox News is not the topic nor are people who watch it.

If you wish to gloat, please do so on-topic and a bit more graciously.

[Chicog]

I do see certain news outlets calling for Clinton and Petraeus to testify at the Benghazi hearings, but best they aren't mentioned lest the naughty step beckons.

[Scott]

An oversized picture has been deleted. These mess up the formatting. If you want it to remain, please re-size it so that it fits in the thread correctly.

[SteeleJoe]

I do see certain news outlets calling for Clinton and Petraeus to testify at the Benghazi hearings, but best they aren't mentioned lest the naughty step beckons.

I think it would be an egregious mistake on all sides if they weren't called and/or deliberately avoided testifying. (Any American with a regard for his country, the way its run and it principles should want that and anyone believing in the current administration should want it. I happen to be both -- the latter with some reservations).

[SteeleJoe]

I should add that even if I had no reservations whatsoever about the Obama administration, and even if I weren't a person who prides himself at his consistent striving for objectivity (I am), I'd very much want them to do everything they could to absolve themselves and definitively dismiss accusations against them.

I can't see why anyone supporting Obama wouldn't want that. Unless...

[Chicog]

Petraeus will testify on Friday.

[SteeleJoe]

Petraeus will testify on Friday.

Yes, and well he should.

Do you disagree? I ask since you made it a point to mention -- I assumed with derision -- that it was being called for...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

[SteeleJoe]

Another afterthought...

1) I am for the most part, an admirer of the Secretary and the job she's done. And while this shouldn't matter, it in fact does - I have a soft spot for her husband.

2) I am not only a proud veteran but have on more than one occasion, and certainly not entirely without cause, been accused of being "pro-military" (I am in a general sense a consistent and unrepentant but by no means unconditional supporter of the military and the people who serve in it); moreover I have followed Gen Petraeus for over a decade as his one of his main areas of study is also one of my own and, more importantly, he is in many respects the sort of person I want an officer in my country's military (and he has made it part of his life's work to seek out, encourage and enable other officers of a similar quality or potential).

3) While the CIA, as anyone with a knowledge of modern history will know, has much to answer for in its history, I believe with much strong supporting evidence that the criticism directed towards it and the frequent and very generalized disdain for it is often exaggerated and unwarranted. Furthermore, I believe that the men and women who serve on it, have in many instances done much good and served their country (and in some cases arguably the world at large) well -

4) I am COMPLETELY uncertain one way or the other of any misconduct, dereliction of duty, or wrongdoing - deliberate or otherwise - on the part of Sec State or the General. My desire to see them be fully subject to scrutiny should not and can not reasonably be construed as an indication of any negative views of either them or the organizations they head; indeed, I would hope to see them both cleared.

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Edited November 15, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Chicog]

Petraeus will testify on Friday.

Yes, and well he should.

Do you disagree? I ask since you made it a point to mention -- I assumed with derision -- that it was being called for...

Sent from my iPad using ThaiVisa ap

Why would you assume that? I've said all along that there is no cover up. Even Clinton can be called if it's required.

I'm merely pointing out that claims that these Australian visits and Petraeus' personal problems are an attempt at stopping them testifying are absurd.

Any "derision" you see is in your own mind.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Chicog

[SteeleJoe]

Why would you assume that? I've said all along that there is no cover up. Even Clinton can be called if it's required.

I'm merely pointing out that claims that these Australian visits and Petraeus' personal problems are an attempt at stopping them testifying are absurd.

Any "derision" you see is in your own mind.

Errr...what did I assume?

I don't know why you'd mention what you've said along there wasn't a cover-up. The way you phrased it sounds to me like you're OK with them testifying because you are certain there's no but to me one's belief in whether was or wasn't an attempt to conceal the truth should be ultimately irrelevant because either way any American of integrity (Obama supporter or otherwise) should want it be known to everyone whether there was one or not. Besides I didn't think the only reason for investigation was to ascertain the existence of a cover-up; I want to know if people screwed up, how badly, who it was, and why.

Big of you to allow SoS Clinton to testify if it's required! I think it certainly should be. Let's turn over every leaf and stone.

Sorry about the derision in my head. So you weren't being derisive when you spoke of outlets calling for testimony? Given the context, I thought it was reference to Fox -- it wasn't?

EDIT:

Never did see the part where you refer to claims that these Australian visits and Petraeus' personal problems are an attempt at stopping them testifying or their absurdity. Or should I just "assume" that?

Edited November 18, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[Chicog]

Errr...what did I assume?

Your words:

"Do you disagree? I ask since you made it a point to mention -- I assumed with derision -- that it was being called for...".

I wasn't specifically referring to Fox, there are a number of people who have taken the view that the Australian trip and Petraeus being excused from the first hearings were an obvious attempt at preventing them from testifying - when all along it's been patently obvious that if either hearing required their presence they can and will be summoned eventually.

And that's exactly what's happened with Petraeus.

Methinks you may have read too much into it.

[SteeleJoe]

Errr...what did I assume?

Your words:

"Do you disagree? I ask since you made it a point to mention -- I assumed with derision -- that it was being called for...".

I wasn't specifically referring to Fox, there are a number of people who have taken the view that the Australian trip and Petraeus being excused from the first hearings were an obvious attempt at preventing them from testifying - when all along it's been patently obvious that if either hearing required their presence they can and will be summoned eventually.

And that's exactly what's happened with Petraeus.

Methinks you may have read too much into it.

I'll be damned. My apolgies, I forgot I'd said that so completely misunderstood you.

Not sure what you think I've read into what.

But I am somewhat surprised that you've never expressed disagreement or agreement with my basic stance. I find it dispiriting that a blind and fairly extreme partisan for the right (Koheetsi) seem to agree with me but fellow Obama supporters...maybe not so much?

[mania]

But I am somewhat surprised that you've never expressed disagreement or agreement with my basic stance. I find it dispiriting that a blind and fairly extreme partisan for the right seem to agree with me but fellow Obama supporters...maybe not so much?

Don't be dispirited

After awhile you might feel as I have felt for many years

Edited November 18, 2012 by mania

[SteeleJoe]

But I am somewhat surprised that you've never expressed disagreement or agreement with my basic stance. I find it dispiriting that a blind and fairly extreme partisan for the right seem to agree with me but fellow Obama supporters...maybe not so much?

Don't be dispirited

After awhile you might feel as I have felt for many years

But I am somewhat surprised that you've never expressed disagreement or agreement with my basic stance. I find it dispiriting that a blind and fairly extreme partisan for the right seem to agree with me but fellow Obama supporters...maybe not so much?

Don't be dispirited

After awhile you might feel as I have felt for many years

I think perhaps you've completely missed my point.

Edited November 18, 2012 by Scott

[Chicog]

But I am somewhat surprised that you've never expressed disagreement or agreement with my basic stance. I find it dispiriting that a blind and fairly extreme partisan for the right (Koheetsi) seem to agree with me but fellow Obama supporters...maybe not so much?

I tend to agree with your basic stance, in as much as it is ludicrous to find anyone guilty of anything when there has been no hard evidence of any wrong doing, other than a serious error of misjudgement in trusting the Libyan military to do their part.

I don't think heads will roll over the Benghazi killings, as tragic as they were, but one would like to think there will be a serious rethink about how much trust can be put in local allies (starting with Maliki and Karzai and their various hangers-on, but I digress!).

But with Clinton leaving, it is not unusual when you take over a perceived mess, to blame it on your predecessor.

[SteeleJoe]

But I am somewhat surprised that you've never expressed disagreement or agreement with my basic stance. I find it dispiriting that a blind and fairly extreme partisan for the right (Koheetsi) seem to agree with me but fellow Obama supporters...maybe not so much?

I tend to agree with your basic stance, in as much as it is ludicrous to find anyone guilty of anything when there has been no hard evidence of any wrong doing...

Of course no one should be found guilty of anything absent of hard evidence. I would have thought that went without saying? But I personally don't think we should be pre-judging as much as you seem to be doing.

Anyway, I appreciate you responding -- I genuinely did hope to hear that you (and other pro-Obama folks --Jingthing?)would agree that a full and completely thorough investigation should be done.

Edited November 18, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[mania]

I think perhaps you've completely missed my point.

Perhaps but my reply was to your statement

I find it dispiriting that a blind and fairly extreme partisan for the right seem to agree with me but fellow Obama supporters...maybe not so much?

You still think there are differences beyond the fluff on the surface.

You expect a left or right party person to be consistent.

You still consider one side blind then are "dispirited" to find the other side just as blind

in your opinion

[SteeleJoe]

You still think there are differences beyond the fluff on the surface.

You expect a left or right party person to be consistent.

You still consider one side blind then are "dispirited" to find the other side just as blind

in your opinion

Psst...don't tell anybody but that wss precisely what I was getting at-- the "Left" (my "side" more than the other is) is so often just as blindly partisan and lacking in intellectual integrity as the "Right" so often is. Something I've known for long before an Obama presidency.

You're quite mistaken about what I think and expect. But I guess facetiousness and irony aren't always recognizable on the internet.

Edited November 18, 2012 by SteeleJoe

[mania]

But I guess facetiousness and irony aren't always recognizable on the internet.

Your right there.

Maybe we need more emoticons