FUND-RAISER 'FLUBBED' HILLARY DATA

[susnfx]

No, no...you want me to believe you, YOU find the quotes. Almost everybody else does - at least start the quote with the part you want us to believe and then post the link directly to the article. (The issue isn't about her anyway, right? It's about a finance guy working for her? Or does her goal to run for President--assuming that IS her goal --automatically mean everything she or anyone working for her does is suspect?)

Susan

[IRTradRU?]

Do your own homework, then, make up your own mind.

Otherwise, I charge $175/hour for tutoring.

[susnfx]

So, then you have no quotes or sources showing that HRC's goal is to run for President.

Thank you.

Susan

[IRTradRU?]

You get an "F".

www.fec.gov


Not a right-wing group, not a left-wing group.

They have all the data you'd need to see.

[susnfx]

You're talking to a group of people who don't seem to particularly care about this, Ir. If you want us to believe you about these things, you have to provide quotes. As it is, I don't care enough to go searching, so if you don't care enough to convince me, we'll just let it go and I'll assume you didn't have the quotes/proof.

Susan

[Walden]

We would appreciate a more direct link, to a page (or pages) within the fec.gov site.

[IRTradRU?]

You're talking to a group of people who don't seem to particularly care about this, Ir. If you want us to believe you about these things, you have to provide quotes. As it is, I don't care enough to go searching, so if you don't care enough to convince me, we'll just let it go and I'll assume you didn't have the quotes/proof.

Susan

Assume away.

Don't bother to click your mouse button a grand total of 3 times.

That's your decision.


CLINTON, HILLARY RODHAM
Address: ARLINGTON, VA 22204
Office Sought: President
State: Presidential Candidate
District: 03
Party: Democratic Party

http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/qcan/

BTW, she filed this in 2003.

[IRTradRU?]

See where 900+ FBI files will get you?

[susnfx]

Really helpful, Ir. That link doesn't work -- and doesn't appear to be from the fec.gov site you posted before. Come on. Let's see the QUOTES and the links.

Susan

[OnTheMoor]

He says that he couldn't find the story with a Fox News search thereby suggesting it isn't a right-wing attack piece. He suggests a "vast left-wing conspiracy" mocking Hillary's claim about the right-wing conspiracy.

I read that post as irony. A previous poster suggested that it was a "left-wing" bias which kept the story from CNN; so the poster you're responding to noted that it wasn't on Fox, either, so according to the same logic, Fox must also be part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Thank you s1m0n.

Edit: smile has been added to my previous post.

[IRTradRU?]

The link doesn't work because it requires a name to be entered in the 'Search' function.

Click:
(1) www.fec.gov

(2) in the left margin, click on the very first choice, "Campaign Finance Reports and Data"

(3) Enter candidate's name

I cut & pasted exactly what was there.

Otherwise, carry on.

[jGilder]

He says that he couldn't find the story with a Fox News search thereby suggesting it isn't a right-wing attack piece. He suggests a "vast left-wing conspiracy" mocking Hillary's claim about the right-wing conspiracy.

I read that post as irony. A previous poster suggested that it was a "left-wing" bias which kept the story from CNN; so the poster you're responding to noted that it wasn't on Fox, either, so according to the same logic, Fox must also be part of the vast left-wing conspiracy.

Thank you s1m0n.

Edit: smile has been added to my previous post.

Yea, sorry OTM, I guess my comments were for the guy you were aiming yours at.

[Darwin]

The Iraqi people were going to rise up and greet us as liberators and everything would just be hunky-dory.

Bay of Pigs.

Good analogy, as far as it goes.

Of course, the Bay of Pigs was a more complete debacle. It was over in four days, and the invasion was a total failure.

But in terms of commitment of US resources, the Bay of Pigs was a drop in the bucket.

What they seem to have in common are:

1) Inadequate intelligence, leading to overly optimistic expectations--a kind of self-deception on the part of the Executive Branch. In the Bay of Pigs case, most of the self-deception seems to have involved the CIA, itself. The OSS ancestry of the CIA pretty much guaranteed that we would have decades of intelligence failures--and that, in the popular imagination, the term "intelligence" would even come to imply more about "dirty tricks" than about the collection and processing of information. In the case of Iraq, the self-deception appears to have been centered a bit closer to the White House.

2) Attempts to deceive the American public--possibly just a side effect of trying to deceive the entire world. In the case of the Bay of Pigs, the government first tried to deny any American involvement at all. In the case of Iraq, the deception seems more subtle. I consider the question of the existence of weapons of mass destruction to involve intelligence failures and stupid optimism, rather than purposeful deception. However, I do believe that the Bush administration was willing to use any excuse to jump Iraq, and that this led them into a poorly planned operation. I also believe that once they thought they had an excuse with WMD, they tried to bolster that excuse with others that were even weaker, like an Al Qaeda link.

3) An attitude that the US has a right to attack any country that we see as a potential threat, unconstrained by any kind of international law. As with the Geneva Convention and the assassination of foreign heads of state, if we say that no rules apply to us, then it's hard to be convincing when we want them to apply to others. I really don't see how this is a good idea. It may work when you're the biggest bully on the block, but I'm not sure we can count of that status to last forever. I'm just glad I speak Chinese.