This was the last story published by the WaPo that I believed.
Posted on 06/14/2016 7:34:32 AM PDT by Zakeet
THE BIG IDEA: Donald Trump is trying to paint Hillary Clinton as soft on national security. That will be a hard sell.
[Snip]
-- These rhetorical attacks are much less likely to stick because Clinton has spent more than a decade defining herself as tough and strong on national security. It is one of the biggest advantages that comes from being such a known commodity and scrutinized public figure.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
This was the last story published by the WaPo that I believed.
Looks like the WaPost is whistling in the dark.
The vapors of illusion quickly evaporate.
This would be the same Hillary who has solicited millions of dollars from terrorist supporting middle east islamist countries?
WaPo is mad because Trump revoked their press credentials to his events and they now have no access. This is their lame response.
Donald Trump is so going to kick Hillary!’s saggy backside around the block.
We learned all we needed to know about Clintoon’s “hawkishness” during her infamous “Stand Down at Benghazi”. She’s a chickensh*t corrupt politician. Geez.
My letter to the LA Times, which will not be published.
Re: Editorial Trump’s innuendo a new low (The Times will not allow articles unless they reference a Times story or editorial. Also they are rabidly anti-trump and pro-Clinton and Imam Obama and yes, i see it free at breakfast downtown)
Ok, let’s dispense with innuendo. Trump made one of the strongest national defense statements in the last 53 years (Cuban Missile Crisis). Obama is very weak on terrorism. Droning leaders and sporadic low level bombing are only small steps and new leaders emerge. He released terrorists when they are still waging declared war on us and our allies and when attacks continue. He refuses to even name the obvious common thread, radical Islam. Even Clinton admits it now that Trump prodded her into it.
Obama relishes open borders and welcomes immigrants from terrorist areas when his administrators admit those countries can’t provide sufficient document to do “thorough screening.” He supported a misnamed Arab Spring and destabilized several counties as radicals and terrorists gained power in those countries. He failed to respond to an attack on our Ambassador and protect a missile shipment. He turns a blind eye to the largest national supporter of terrorism, Iran, in their development of a nuclear weapon. He hides information indicating the Saudi officials lent support to the 9-11 terrorists.
When asked about ISIS 3 years ago, he said that the Pentagon, after two years, was still working on a plan of attack. I made my decision, before this week, that I could not vote for Clinton and now I am sure that I will be voting for the strongest candidate for our national defense, Donald Trump. If anything, Trump’s statement could have been stronger.
Lastly, the Times refuses to make public the recording of Obama’s statement at a dinner in LA which might have cost him the election in 2008. As Bush said, you’re either for us or your for the terrorists. Trump is for us and it’s time for you to step up.
“... defining herself as tough and strong on national security...”
##############################
Words fail me...All I can do is BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!!!
They should have interviewed Ambassador Stevens to confirm how tough she is on national security. Oh, wait....
Any mention of her 500% increase in immigrant Jihadis?
Not really. To little, to late.
The Washington Post is openly shilling for Hillary.
Good to know their dishonesty and partisanship have plumbed a new low.
Keep it up!
Personal ... email ... server ... with ... classified ... data ... unprotected.
WaPo ... you're all idiots.
If there’s big money to be made, Hillary is interested in it.
If there is big money to be made by Hillary in using US forces to overthrow a foreign government, like Libya, then she is interested in it.
When her thieving actions result in Americans being killed, like at Benghazi, then she isn’t interested in it and she runs to her bedroom to hide under the covers.
Washington has zero credibility
Mr Hohman, put down that jug of kool-aid before writing crap like this. To say this woman is a defense hawk is a joke and to say she’s been scrutinized as a public official is an even bigger joke. If she had been given just one ounce of scrutiny in her public life by the media she would be nothing more than an angry feminist lawyer at this point in her life.
I’d love to see her list of accomplishments.
The author can’t go beyond platitudes.
Now that’s a tough sale - just call a liberal tough and strong.
Like Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.