At last night CNN hosted town hall, Chris Cuomo challenged Hillary Clinton on her use of a private email server to handle all of her emails. Her response is classic Clinton:

“Nothing” was wrong? Not even a tad wrong? And no “error in judgment”?

Here’s the video:

Sorry, Hillary. We’re not buying it:

She also sounds like she’s contradicting what she said in the past:

Here’s the clip:

Isn’t this the actual definition of an “error in judgment”?

“I do think I could have and should have done a better job answering questions earlier. I really didn’t perhaps appreciate the need to do that,” the democratic presidential candidate told Muir in an exclusive interview in New York City. “What I had done was allowed, it was above board. But in retrospect, as I look back at it now, even though it was allowed, I should have used two accounts. One for personal, one for work-related emails. That was a mistake. I’m sorry about that. I take responsibility.”

***

 

  • DevilDocNowCiv

    int,

    Yes, you got the no-dull aspect right. And the Wilson history is interesting, as I have read about his bad presidency a few times. It served to give the Marines one of their proudest, most storied battles, the Battle of Belleau Wood. Here the Marines got their nickname of Devil Dogs, and while that’s a mark of pride for them to this day, our late entry served to slaughter many of our guys not directly in our national interest.

    Many histories of WW I have been printed, and while the Brits and French were staggering, and the Russians collapsing in Red rebellion, the Germans were still able to man, arm, and feed their troops due to a strict socialization control of socioty by a general named Ludendorf.

    While he could have kept them going for who knows how much longer, in fact the Imperial manpower advantage of the French and Brits had not been at all fully tapped. Nor had their industrial capacity been fully exploited, as it could have been dramatically expanded in Canada and Australia.

    No, Wilson let himself be pushed into a war he could have kept out of, even though I myself understand, haveing gone voluntarily to both Iraq and Afghanland, that our guys were by and large happy to go and fight. The leadership role isn’t “whadda you wanna do, guys?” Its “Gentlemen, heres what you’re doing. Go!”

    So I’m glad Trump, Cruz, Carson and some others have noted we can go in with troops, but should do it as a minority part of a Muslim coalition. Having been over there, I guarantee, the well trained but small Jordanian army is willing to do this, as is the huge but so-so trained Egyptian army.

    Under our leadership, which we have great experience in coordinating such multinational command centers and operations (I’ve been part of such training-we do it repeatedly with allies around the world, every year). Now, thats one piece, and the next Pres would have to work out waging war in Syria without shooting any Russians. And in Iraq (ISIS is in both) where the Iranians seem to have dominant influence over the Iraqi Pres, as has been shown by his refusal of our request by our SecDef to have Cobras hunt down ISIS during some operations in Iraq.

    So another heavy, troop involved Mideast Military intervention won’t be simple, but unlike WW I, it should be an honest part of the presidential run.

    • interestedobserver2

      Yeah, I was over there for both the SHIELD and the STORM. Got there in early August, in fact. We can do a LOT of smarter things in foreign policy and foreign wars than we have the past few years — that’s for sure.

      • DevilDocNowCiv

        int,

        Yes, my itinerary: I was on now decom’d CV 64 (the Connie) for a turn at Southern Watch sometime between ’93-’96. And in Fallujah, pre – surge, overwintering between ’05-’06. If we had a Pres with the simple direction to his SecDef “when we go, we go fast, hard, and with a plan on how to get out, updated weekly.

        Have the JCS in on that weekly update.” That simple thing, and I’ll leave out lots of stupidity we can both point out from every administration, so we have to add that the Pres has to have a core of more interest in the country than his/her re-election.

        • interestedobserver2

          I miss the Connie — she was a good ship. She did a lot of excellent work for us during STORM and it was a pleasure working with her crew.

          • DevilDocNowCiv

            So you were on her too? I was in the med dept from ’93 to early to mid ’97. Were you onboard, or just noting that all in that operational area were all part of the same effort?

          • interestedobserver2

            No, I was an AF guy that did a lot of the targeting work for your operators back in the day — made a couple of trips out to brief the targets and stuff prior to DESERT STORM kicking off — but those operator guys were sure great to work with!

          • DevilDocNowCiv

            Well, from the pilots, to the aircrew, to the ground crew, all of you folks do a great job clearing the sky from the bad guys (when they don’t run from you, or hide on the ground) and dealing justice from above. From those of us floating and when with our Marines, fighting on the ground, sincere thanks. We have our own air, but you guys were there more often than not when needed. I saw plenty of evidence on that on cockpit video saved on our Battalion share drive when in Fallujah. Very motivating indeed.

          • interestedobserver2

            I was an Army grunt (light infantry) before I joined the USAF to fly helicopters (then, the AF decided they had too many of us rotorheads so, since I spoke Russian, they turned me into an intel geek instead, but after Berlin, I had the last laugh and got to do targeting instead). Turns out that was a good thing — I knew just how important it was to have some aerial coverage over the good guys even while we were kicking the s**t out of the bad guys far away. There’s nothing like a Warthog or a Mudhen (F-15E) to give the boys on the ground a strong feeling of support, if you know what I mean. So thanks — but you folks were earning your money the hard way. We were just glad to be able to take the pressure off from time to time…

          • DevilDocNowCiv

            int,

            Yes, I know the grunts. My choice with our Marines was to go with Infantry. Different culture, but in war, lots of similarities at least from the Staff Sergeants down. You then showed the capability to fly helo’s! Very cool.

            Ahh, but the storied Warthog. I and many have lots of affection for it. I’m glad it’s hanging on, and the main way to do it, in my mind, is this:

            Some Congressional saviors (currently, we have a few) sponsor an amendment to some defense bill that says, if the USAF wants to cancel the Warthog, it transfers to the Navy, for use with Marine Air.

            After a few high ranking “Zoomies” collapse with palpitations, the Air Force will demand the right to retain the Hog. Either way, good. My guys would salivate over being able to use that thing.

          • interestedobserver2

            Yep. I’ve always been DEEPLY disappointed in the USAF’s attitude towards that plane — far and away the best ground support aircraft we’ve had in the inventory since the P-47, in my opinion. At one time, there was a plot by the Army to take it away from the USAF (when the USAF first started making noise about getting rid of it during the Merrill McPeak term as AF CoS — may he rot in hell forever). That stopped the USAF cold that time. After that they adopted the “incremental” approach to getting rid of it. Why? So they could buy “sexier” airplanes for the fighter jocks (or, as we call ’em, “zipper-suited sun gods”). Jesus, who cares about that stuff? Give me “effective at its mission” every time; and let’s face it, the F-16 is no replacement for the A-10.