Bob Graham, March 21: "There's no question that the Bush administration covered up for the Saudis."

[JonLP24]

22. I agree very much with you in regards to the poster's contributions

Regarding the point what the poster may agree, you can verify pretty easily Nancy Pelosi scores clearly on the right side when it GovTrack which is a metric that uses quite a bit but points out its limits -- https://www.govtrack.us/about/analysis#leadership

She scores on the right end of the ideology score this tracks many House/Senate & behavior that relates to each other such as "Working with the House" she is #268 is Nancy Pelosi whichs there are 267 members of Congress to the right of her but means she is the 173rd most liberal member of the House but she is mostly irrelevant (though she was briefs quite a bit from Bush & US foreign policy that were indeed illuminating very early going back to shortly after 9/11) but I think it is unlikely to have seen campaign ads to not see one with the ad mentioning Pelosi in it. She drives the right crazy which I don't understand why since she agrees with a lot.

How this relates to Hillary Clinton, the right isn't scared or really polarizing when it comes to certain individuals isn't because they are socialists or lefties, its like they hate the Democrats that make a point to agree with or try not to piss off.

Convince me that she is a crimina....? You can't find things depend on what you're looking for or what would convince of...

Spying on United Nations leaders by United States diplomats

In July 2009, a confidential cable[1] originating from the United States Department of State, and under US Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's name, ordered US diplomats to spy on Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, and other top UN officials.[2] The intelligence information the diplomats were ordered to gather included biometric information (which apparently included DNA, fingerprints, and iris scans), passwords, and personal encryption keys used in private and commercial networks for official communications.[2][3] It also included Internet and intranet usernames, e-mail addresses, web site URLs useful for identification, credit card numbers, frequent flier account numbers, and work schedules.[2][4][5] The targeted human intelligence was requested in a process known as the National Humint Collection Directive, and was aimed at foreign diplomats of US allies as well.[5]

The news of the cable and directive was revealed by website WikiLeaks on 28 November 2010, as part of the overall United States diplomatic cables leak.

The disclosed cables on the more aggressive intelligence gathering went back to 2008 when they went out under Condoleezza Rice's name during her tenure as Secretary of State.[5]

US State Department spokesman Philip J. Crowley stated that Clinton had not drafted the directive and that the Secretary of State's name is systematically attached to the bottom of cables originating from Washington.[6] In fact, further leaked material revealed that the guidance in the cables was actually written by the Central Intelligence Agency before being sent out under Clinton's name, as the CIA cannot directly instruct State Department personnel.[3][7] Specifically, the effort came from the National Clandestine Service, a CIA service formed in the years following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks with the goal of better coordinating human intelligence activities.[3] According to former US officials, the instructions given in these cables may have been largely ignored by American diplomats as ill-advised.[7]
Breach of international laws

The UN had previously declared that spying on the secretary-general was illegal, as a breach of the 1946 UN convention.[2] Peter Kemp, Solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, and international-law professor Ben Saul, publicly asked Julia Gillard, Prime Minister of Australia, to complain "to the U.S. about both Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton being in major breach of International law ie UN Covenants, by making orders to spy on UN personnel, including the Secretary General, to include theft of their credit card details and communication passwords. Perhaps the Attorney General should investigate this clear prima facie evidence of crime (likely against Australian diplomats as well), rather than he attempts to prosecute the messenger of those crimes."[8][9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spying_on_United_Nations_leaders_by_United_States_diplomats

The spokesman does mention a lot that is quite factual. It likely did came from a CIA idea shortly after 9/11 (I'm willing put down large bets that Pelosi was there for the briefing) but who is ultimately responsible for the leak under her name? Nobody, so it varies with what are you looking for in what would be convincing.

Hillary Clinton could be very illuminating depending on perceptions, I suppose.

Pre-War Militarism

Senator Clinton's militaristic stance on Iraq predated her support for Bush's 2003 invasion. For example, in defending the brutal four-day U.S. bombing campaign against Iraq in December 1998 – known as Operation Desert Fox – she claimed that "[T]he so-called presidential palaces ... in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left." In reality, as became apparent when UN inspectors returned in 2002 as well as in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation, there were no weapons labs, stocks of weapons or missing records in these presidential palaces. In addition, Saddam was still allowing for virtually all inspections to go forward at the time of the 1998 U.S. attacks. The inspectors were withdrawn for their own safety at the encouragement of President Clinton in anticipation of the imminent U.S.-led assault.

Senator Clinton also took credit for strengthening U.S. ties with Ahmad Chalabi, the convicted embezzler who played a major role in convincing key segments of the administration, Congress, the CIA, and the American public that Iraq still had proscribed weapons, weapons systems, and weapons labs. She has expressed pride that her husband's administration changed underlying U.S. policy toward Iraq from "containment" – which had been quite successful in defending Iraq's neighbors and protecting its Kurdish minority – to "regime change," which has resulted in tragic warfare, chaos, dislocation, and instability.

You may not see this but by IAEA was so very interested as to why a Russian scientist was in Iran in the 1990's, why was a Russian scientist in Iran in 90s? We know now he was there on business with the CIA.

Prior to the 2003 invasion, Clinton insisted that Iraq still had a nuclear program, despite a detailed 1998 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), subsequent studies that indicated that Iraq's nuclear program appeared to have been completely dismantled a full decade earlier, and a 2002 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that made no mention of any reconstituted nuclear development effort. Similarly, even though Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs had been dismantled years earlier, she also insisted that Iraq had rebuilt its biological and chemical weapons stockpiles. And, even though the limited shelf life of such chemical and biological agents and the strict embargo against imports of any additional banned materials that had been in place since 1990 made it physically impossible for Iraq to have reconstituted such weapons, she insisted that "It is clear...that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

In the fall of 2002, Senator Clinton sought to discredit those questioning Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice-President Dick Cheney, and others who were making hyperbolic statements about Iraq's supposed military prowess by insisting that Iraq's possession of such weapons "are not in doubt" and was "undisputed." Similarly, Clinton insisted that Secretary of State Colin Powell's February 2005 speech at the UN was "compelling" although UN officials and arms control experts roundly denounced its false claims that Iraq had reconstituted these proscribed weapons, weapons programs, and delivery systems. In addition, although top strategic analysts correctly informed her that there were no links between Saddam Hussein's secular nationalist regime and the radical Islamist al-Qaeda, Senator Clinton insisted that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaeda members."

http://www.antiwar.com/zunes/?articleid=12052

Is it really cheap shots or concerns?