Hillary Clinton Fires A Shot Across Biden’s Bow Over Bin Laden Raid
Now that she’s out of Foggy Bottom and getting back into politics, Hillary Clinton is starting to reveal more and more about her intentions for 2016 such as recently when she’s taken the opportunity make not of the fact that she and potential rival Vice-President Joe Biden disagreed about the raid against Osama bin Laden’s compound:
Former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton was in town today. A few Secret Squirrels, and some not so secret, agreed to be our sources, given that her speech to the National Association of Convenience Stores was encapsulated by a cone of silence. Convention officials banned all video and sound recording, social media, and naturally, journalists.
No ears reported any mention of whatever 2016 ambitions Clinton might have. But state Rep. Tom Taylor, R-Dunwoody, said the former first lady dropped a huge hint. “I know she’s running for president now, because toward the end, she was asked about the Osama bin Laden raid. She took 25 minutes to answer,” Taylor said. “Without turning the knife too deeply, she put it to [Vice President Joe] Biden.”
Time and time again, Taylor said, Clinton mentioned the vice president’s opposition to the raid, while characterizing herself and Leon Panetta, then director of the Central Intelligence Agency, as the action’s most fierce advocates.
This comes from a report out of Atlanta, but as Politico notes, it’s not the first time that Clinton has brought this issue up:
Clinton struck a similar theme at another recent speech before the Long Island Association, according to an attendee.
She was asked about bin Laden at that event as well, and in her telling, the attendee said, “She and the CIA director were for the attack, and Biden and the secretary of defense were against the attack.”
It’s a small matter, perhaps, but in some ways it is reminiscient of how Clinton herself was on the receiving end of a similar distinction n 2008 when then Senator Obama pointed out her support for the Iraq War when it initially came up for a vote in Congress, as well as at various times when supplemental funding bills were voted upon. Assuming Clinton and Biden both run, I wouldn’t be surprised to see this theme come up again.
While things turned out well for Hillary in this particular case, I actually consider this a point in Biden’s favor. We would do well to have a President who was a little more leery about the limits of America’s military power.
ISTM we’ve moved past the stage where a right centrist dem is the best choice for the top of the ticket. In second place, no prob. A Warren/Clinton or Warren/Biden ticket would be awesome.
It’s always nice to hear from Madam Benghazi.
@rudderpedals: A Warren/Clinton or Warren/Biden ticket would be awesome.
Yeah, we could have our first Native American president in Elizabeth Warren. She’s part Indian — just don’t ask her to prove it. Actually, don’t ask her about it at all — it’s a verboten topic now that it’s no longer advantageous for her to make that claim, and now that folks are actually asking her to show any proof whatsoever.
And don’t ask her if she ever actually got a license to practice law in Massachusetts, even though she did practice out of her Harvard office. Or ask her about the academic frauds in her 1989 book on bankruptcy.
That dog won’t hunt. Ask former Senator Brown.
And good to hear from you, Neville Chamberlain.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
All of that triviata aside, Elizabeth Warren is not a good campaigner – she’s got fire, but she is not an appealing personality. I definitely cannot see her at the top of the ticket.
Warren would also benefit from more time in DC learning her craft. One of Obama’s big problems is that he doesn’t really seem that good at working things behind the scene, and he probably would have accomplished more of his agenda if he’d had more time in the Senate, learning the inside baseball part of federal politics, before becoming President.
I’d refer to President Obama’s victories as examples of why Liz Warren can pull it off in spite of the lack of DC aging. Al, I don’t find her off-putting but I’ve been a fan before she came into national politics. Do you think it’s something she can work on in the short amount of time to 16?
I think people are who they are – small changes may be effected, generally what you see is what you get.
I suppose that for me it’s a personality-type of preference – I’m generally not a fan of candidates who feature the hard sell, the fiery oration – it’s something I am wary of. An evangelical ministry – that pulpit approach.
That said, I generally support Warren’s policy positions, although she’s a bit too oriented toward a lot more financial regulation than I am. For example, I’m in favor of scaling back Sarbanes-Oxley, and re-instating some of Glass-Steagall.
@Stormy Dragon: “We would do well to have a President who was a little more leery about the limits of America’s military power. ”
Really? I’d rather have a president who is actually right about the limits of America’s military power. Obama — and here, Clinton — made a judgment and judged right. While being overly cautious is better than being willfully risky, being right is even better.
@Jenos Idanian #13: So after trying one sane comment which actually got him a little praise and a reasonable response or two, Jenos has decided that trolling is much more fun, and he’s back to making himself look like a complete loser on the off chance that this will annoy people.
Was he right, or just lucky? If I put my entire life savings on 17 in a roulette game and win, that doesn’t mean I was right about my retirement strategy.
@wr: Hey, turd-for-brains, everything I said about Warren is accurate. She claimed for years to be part Indian. She practiced law in Massachusetts without ever getting a license. And the academic fraud in her 1989 book is well-established.
Which, now that I think about it, makes her perfectly qualified to be a leading Democrat.
It’s amazing that Elizabeth Warren won any election considering how sullied she apparently is…the criticisms against her from the usual suspects appear to be the consumption of the sourest grapes by the sorest losers…
Yeah, I can’t see Warren 2016 or ever.
And on the OBL raid, sure, we got him, and that’s been a spine-stiffener for your average Democrat-ideologue around here, but we also lost a chopper that Pakistan probably sold the remains of to China. We’ll have to wait a few years to reap the fallout of that.
Not to mention we had to live through Zero Dark Thirty.
democrats turning on each other- it’s like muslims killing each other, we all win.
@An Interested Party: It’s amazing that Elizabeth Warren won any election considering how sullied she apparently is…
She’s from Massachusetts, the state that, for decades, sent Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to the Senate. Warren is continuing that tradition. Scott Brown was an aberration.
@bill: Anyone can be an azzhole. It doesn’t take any talent and it is nothing to be proud of.
Aberrant for sure
@Stormy Dragon: “Was he right, or just lucky?”
Actually, both. At worst you could say he was right because he was lucky… but he chose to undertake a certain set of actions and they resulted in the desired conclusion. To write that off to “being lucky” is equivalent to saying that God was really responsible for the outcome — possibly true, absolutely unprovable, and useless for understanding what happened.
Oh my, you poor deluded thing…have you been paying attention to the news? With the whole shutdown debacle, it is the Republicans who are turning on each other…and just like some Muslims, some of those foolish Republicans believe that their political enemies will burn in hell…