Archive for the ‘Clear and Present Danger’ Category

Hillary Takes Credit For The Troop Surge [UPDATED]

January 14, 2008

~Snooper~

BITCH! BITCH! THE BITCH IS BACK! BITCH! BITCH! THE BITCH IS BACK!
OK. This is what we have been expecting for quite some time. As the Defeatocrats ignore the successes of the Troop Surge and Victory in Iraq is imminent, the Leftinistra have been consorting and their Spin Machines have come up with a plan…pretend they were for the Troop Surge and take all credit for the Victory in Iraq. I have written about this on my “old blog” Take Our Country Back and I will dig up those posts and place them here fairly soon.

HT to Gateway Pundit for the data here presented for our readers and subscribers:

It Has Begun…Hillary Takes Credit For Surge She Opposed!!
Imagine that. To set the damn record straight, please recall that the Defeatocrats INCLUDING Czarina the Budding Leninist opposed the Bush Troop Surge from the beginning. Hillary’s “sudden” turn around and accepting the credit for the successes of the Bush Troop Surge requires the willful suspension of disbelief, as she herself said about General Petraeus’ testimony before the CONgress way back in September of 2007. Remember that one? This is unbelievable but it has been expected.

From Gateway: (we at A Newt One concur)

Judith Apter Kliinghoffer at the History News Network posted this amazing attempt by Hillary Clinton on Meet the Press to take credit for the success in Iraq even though she opposed the Bush Surge that brought about this success:

MR. RUSSERT: If General Petraeus says, “Senator, in September you called the surge the suspension of belief. It has worked, and you know it’s worked”–let me finish–“you can see on the ground. I’m saying to you, Senator, or president-elect Clinton, don’t destroy Iraq. It’s working, the surge is working. Keep troops there just a few more months to get this reconciliation complete.”

SEN. CLINTON: …The point of the surge was to quickly move the Iraqi government and Iraqi people. That is only now beginning to happen, and I believe in large measure because the Iraqi government, they watch us, they listen to us. I know very well that they follow everything that I say. And my commitment to begin withdrawing our troops in January of 2009 is a big factor, as it is with Senator Obama, Senator Edwards, those of us on the Democratic side. It is a big factor in pushing the Iraqi government to finally do what they should have been doing all along.

Amazing!She voted to surrender Iraq with the rest of the Democrats– a move that would have brought total destruction to the country.
Now, she wants to take credit for its success!
Truly, amazing!

Today, Hillary Clinton also blasted antiwar Barak Obama on the War in Iraq.
And, yet here’s a look at Hillary Clinton’s many stands on Iraq:

video here
I, Snooper, have willfully suspended my disbelief. Simply amazing how so many will swallow this creeps’ bullshit lockstep and goosestep.

Hillary Clinton on October 2, 2002:

“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interest of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war. It is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our president.”

Hillary Clinton on February 7, 2007:

“Nearly four years ago our president rushed us into war in Iraq.”

Yet today, this troubled and dishonest politician is bashing antiwar Barak Obama for his stand against the war we are now winning.

Hillary also attacked Barak Obama for raising the race issue!

Who wants change?


This woman is certainly NOT ready for the Big Times and is clearly unfit for command.

Catch the wave at memeorandum right here…

Read Heading Right‘s take:
Hot Air:
Meet The Depressed video here:
Riehl World View:
Suitably Flip:
Wake Up America:
Flopping Aces:
Don Surber now steps in:
MacsMind:
The Astute Bloggers:
Weasel Zippers:
Snakes and Snails:
Right Voices:
Protein Wisdom:
Poligazette:

I wonder why General David Petraeus sent a letter to Debbie Lee of Move America Forward a letter of thanks for supporting the troops and he didn’t send one to Hillary?

Advertisements

A Merry Christmas Message From Czarina

December 20, 2007

~Snooper~

Hillary Rodham Clinton wishes us all a Merry Bash Bush, Bring The Troops Home, Socialist Health Care, Take Your Money, Larger Government Tax-Funded Programs, etc, etc, etc. Everything a good socialist wants to shove up a Free Man’s arse.
Simply amazing.Hot Air
Right Angles
The American Mind
BCB
Right In A Left World
Gateway Pundit
STACLU

The Tired And Pathetic Rodham…Would Be Czarina

December 15, 2007

Don Surber seems to think that Czarina is tired and old.  Jamie Wearing Fool says she looks pathetic as she panders door-to-door.  I am just sick and tired of her Leninistic and Stalinistic idiocy and she still represents a Clear and Present Danger to this country.  I place her in the same category as Medea (Susan) Benjamin.

 

[door2.jpg]

DESPERATION TIME FOR HILLARY

December 11, 2007

HILLARY FALTERING… DAMN IT!

Republicans – hoping to run against the smartest woman in America – are sitting on pins and needles as Obama makes big strides

Jimmy Z –  The panic and tension in the Hillary campaign is unquestionable. Democrats by and large are skeptical now about her candidacy. Liberals want to win the White House. They do not want to run with Hillary if Hillary can’t win.

Oprah Winfrey’s embracing and endorsing of Barack Obama was in the news literally all weekend long (never mind that Rush Limbaugh’s appearance in Washington State drew more people than the largest Oprah/Obama fiasco). Obama is on a roll.

But does Obama have the legs to take the prize? We don’t think so. The Obama team cannot possibly out maneuver Clinton, Inc., can they?

Barack also lacks any real experience in national politics. In the long run this is going to cause him some real trouble. As the major primaries roll up, Hillary is likely to take over and come on strong.

We sure hope so. What Obama has shown is that although he doesn’t have the stamina and team to pull it off, Hillary is obviously not invincible. And if someone is going to knock her out, we want it to be a Republican candidate.

Let’s Talk About Hillary

November 24, 2007

~Snooper~
Hillary, whose apparent zero is Kerry, is more often than not for something until she decides she was actually undecided about being against that which once was neither for or against.

Which, is better than what?

And, where is Hillary? Ever since she internationally embarrassed herself at the most recent “debate”, if, you can call it that, her Toy Boy Billy has been her voice. Is this how her alleged Presidency going to be? Is this what America needs or, more bluntly, wants? Will Hillary, at the first sign of a whoopsie, call for Billy? Perish the thought.

Over at Political Grind, they have this to say:

[…] For the first time in a long time, Mrs. Clinton finds herself under intense scrutiny from her opponents and the mainstream media. Are they “piling on”? Of course. Is it fair? This is a query unworthy of an answer; it is merely what it is. Welcome to the race to be president of the United States, Mrs. Clinton.

A much more pertinent side question: what took so long for the genuine media scrutiny?

For some reason, Hillary Clinton enjoyed extraordinarily positive press coverage for the last eight years. Why? I have no satisfying explanation. Had the left-leaning mainstream media been cultivating and protecting a favored candidate? Not likely. This hypothesis is deliciously inviting, but it seems far too facile and “breathtakingly” conspiratorial. Perhaps the media felt genuine sympathy for the famously humiliated wife of the most celebrated philandering husband in all of American history? Or perhaps the media believed that they went too far during impeachment, and they owed the Clintons a “pay-back call” or two. Maybe. […]

From an outsider looking in, I see the media’s “turn” on Hillary as wild animals turning on the wounded member of the pack. Just an observation based upon nearly 53 years on this planet. All in all, most of the Lame Stream sides with Hillary but the occasional barb is indicative of vultures waiting for their prey to actually die off before they dine.

At Lightning Fingers’ place at Wake Up America: Panic In Hillaryville

[…] Rasmussen again showed that she was hemorrhaging points in NH…in September 18th, she held a 23 point lead, October 27th, that lead dropped to 16 points and November 7th, that lead dropped to 10 points.

That is a 13 point drop since September 18th, 2007.

Worse news, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll that heads up against Giuliani, Hillary only enjoys a 1 point lead.

USA/Gallup shows married men do not favor Hillary.

Zogby shows trouble for Hillary in Iowa.

This next Rasmussen poll is no big surprise, since it is Texas, but added with everything else, my question yesterday about whether Hillary Clinton is losing that “shoe in” status becomes more relevant. […]

Don Surber has a knack for the obvious to those wide awake…unlike the Leftinistra. As our readers should quickly realize, we call out the inconsistencies of the Leftinistra on a regular basis. I dare say that 99.9% of them will NEVER accept responsibility for their own actions if the outcome is a negative. There is always someone else to blame or something else.

[…] So the big news from Planet Clinton is that Bill is cavalierly accepting the blame for the failure of Hillarycare in 1994.

The New York Times quoted him as saying: “You know how much she cares about this. She has taken the rap for some of the problems we had with health care the last time that were far more my fault than hers.”

And indeed, the headline on an Oct. 3, 1994, story via NYT News Service said: “First lady takes blame for health care demise.”

Except for the part where she did not say that. Mrs. Clinton’s construct was that she was to blame for failing to make you people (mouth breathers that you are) understand the genius of her perfect plan.

Reported the Times in 1994: “But the most frustrating failure she acknowledges is not getting the country to understand that the plan the Clintons offered a year ago was an opening offer, ‘constructed to be deconstructed.’ Instead of being a basis for negotiations, she said, ‘it was described as an ultimatum by our opponents and therefore used to undermine the process of reaching agreement.'”

Got that? The VMWC (vast medical wing conspiracy) did her in, preventing her from bestowing upon the dumb masses the wisdom of her perfect plan. […]

Case closed. Or, as my partners here at ANO would say, checkmate.

So, we have determined that at the first sign of actually having to admit to something that could go wrong for Hillary, she calls on others to fall on her own sword, lest she get harmed, and then blame game then ensues and when the dust settles, she will emerge and say something akin to, ‘What?’

And what of her Porkness? Ed Morrisey chimes in on that:

Guess which presidential candidate has the temerity to talk fiscal responsibility while outstripping the other candidates in pork-barrel spending? It turns out the Woodstock museum was only the headline act in a long concert of earmarking for Hillary Clinton. Not only does she lead the Senate delegation in this cycle’s presidential race, but despite her junior status, she earmarked more than five times more money than her nearest competitor: […]

Again, we ask, is this what America needs? A spendthrift Socialist? No, Hillary. America cannot afford you and your 1,000,000 “things America cannot afford”.

Flopping Aces:

[…] Ahhhhh, the Clintons. You can always count on them for some kind of dishonorable conduct. […]

Exactly so.

A Hat Tip to Stop the ACLU for this article here:

Two new reputable polls of New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters will show statistically significant drops in support for frontrtunner Hillary Clinton, Democrats who have seen those polls said today.

The polls will be released this weekend and are embargoed; though I’m not privy to the embargo agreement, I’ll be a little vague out of respect for the polling organizations.

One of the polls shows that the gap between Clinton and Barack Obama narrowed by more than 10 points. Her biggest decline was seen among older voters.

The other shows Clinton’s lead over Obama reduced by approximately 9 points.

John Edwards remains at about 15 percent in both.

And, there are reports that Hillary leads Rudy by 1 point now. In cases such as this, I consider Bad News for Hillary to be Good News. I so hope that Hillary is the nominee for the DNC. The GOP may not be able to take back the Senate but the GOP sure does have a good shot at taking back the House and WILL retain the White House.

Bring it on, Hillary.

Others blogging:

Snooper / A NEWT ONE: Let’s Talk About Hillary

Chris Bowers / Open Left: Obama, Non-Christians, and New Hampshire

Spree / Wake up America: Panic in Hillaryville? — Yesterday we pointed out a few polls done …

Peggy Noonan / Opinion Journal: Things Are Tough All Over — But Mrs. Clinton is no Iron Lady.

Jonathan Singer / MyDD: Ambinder: Two New Polls Show Race Tightening in NH

Gaius / Blue Crab Boulevard: Wonder Why Camp Hillary Is Almost Frantic?

Reliapundit / THE ASTUTE BLOGGERS: JUST LIKE DEAN, HILLARY IS FADING FAST. SO, WHO WILL BECOME THE NEXT KERRY?

JammieWearingFool: Pantsuit Plummets in NH Polls

John Riley / Spin Cycle: Clinton gets a big endorsement but a bad poll

Ed Morrissey / Captain’s Quarters: All Hail The Pork Queen


Catch the wave.

Hillary: The Sickness of The Beguiled

November 24, 2007

~Snooper~

The Budding Leninist, Czarina, the Modern American Progressive, is a Clear and Present Danger to the very survival of Traditional America. Traditional America is under attack by these budding Leninists, calling themselves “Progressives”. If one carefully examines the mantra of said same, one will see that which they prattle and yammer upon is Socialism with a smattering of Communism, disguised as “progressive”.


What are these “progressives” progressing towards? No one on “their” side of the aisle, whichever that side might be, has explained their talking dulls satisfactorily, have they? Does anyone even know? I have performed a scientific study and I do believe that our team has discovered the ailment causing the sickness that “progressivism” is. It is kind of scary and without further ado, we provide a CT Scan of a “progressive’ we found wondering aimlessly around SE Texas, incoherent, inaudible and in dire need of a rubber room.


And there you have it. We call it Hillaroncasinseptocacka. Like the Sci Fi Borg technology, the human brain was injected with this nanoprobes and this victim of this tragic attack fought the assimilation to their ultimate peril. It deteriorated the thought process to the point that the victim actually drowned in its own drivel. The recorded dying words were, “Bush did it”.

The nanoprobes disintegrated immediately following death.

In other news, we find that the Hillaryscare Campaign is in a tizzy over their stature in Iowa. It seems as though that damn Obama character is actually pulling ahead.

Naturally, her apparent falling from grace could be a direct result of the criminal activity she has conveniently side-stepped and her money-bag and emotional standard bearers are charlatans.

Some are saying that her woes are catching up with her now that Czarina is making a play to The Big House…woops…The White House.

As the Czarina expresses her feigned caring drivel towards our troops, we are reminded how our troops think of her. As for her sexual inclinations, I really don’t care but the rumor is still out there and I am with Don…it is just a rumor at this point and it really should be left well enough alone.

With her woes in Iowa making the road ahead indeed troublesome, her paperwork is being held hostage someplace and is due to be released but the delay-game is “Rather” irksome. I would rather see these documents that are sure to pin-point her qualifications to be CIC…without them, what is her justification?

The Dema Sutra positions of the Budding Leninist, as intriguing and hard to track and keep up with are “Rather” typical of a liar, charlatan and someone with something to hide, I find her inability to maintain eye contact all too revealing.

Her ever “evolving” and “progressive” (whatever that means) pseudonyms for whatever position she takes with whatever the prevailing winds are at the time, is always so evasive and unclear to the minds of the intellectually sound. With the continuing scandals surfacing, I find it interesting that she even shows herself in the public eye. The Clinton machine pathway is littered with the bodies of those that know the Real Deal.

What should serve as an adequate wake-up call to the American People is being shunted to ground and her supporters include terrorists and their moppets.

Carl Rove says she can be beat but the road to defeat for the Czarina would be an easier path if her drones would wake-up to smell the coffee and to call into question her patriotism or better yet, ask the question as to what she is actually patriotic towards.

Hillary’s Tribute To The Old Smelly Hippies

October 22, 2007

Hillary’s $1M Drug Addict and Anti War Museum Porker

Yes, I know, this is old news and all but it came up in the GOP Debate this evening and Senator McCain presented and excellent rendering of his opinion.

I remember the Woodstock era and they were the smelly hippies of our time then and to build a museum honoring the anti-establishment, anti-war and anti-Americanists of that time, is all too telling to me and Hillary does not deserve to even think about running for President, let alone be the President of the United States.

I sure am glad that the museum honoring cowards and drug addicts won’t be built.

He said when he was asked about this tribute, that he thinks that no one that supports such spending as this can be the President and he also said that he was not in attendance at Woodstock because he was tied up at the time. Here is the exact quote:

“I wasn’t there. I’m sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event. I was tied up at the time.”

In case you are not in touch with current events, Senator McCain was a POW in North Vietnam at the time Woodstock was taking place.

That got him the ONLY standing ovation during the debate.

Good on John McCain. I think that with a little more “soap box” antics, John McCain will rise to the occasion.

Catch The Wave

Hillary…Just Another Spelling For Corruption

October 20, 2007

Hillary’s Corruption Never Ends.

t has been said that atheists can lie like a rug because they have no moral compunction that requires them to tell the truth.

“The beauty of being an atheist is that you have no moral reason to tell the truth. So Pete Stark can claim such outrageous (if stupidly worded) things about the President.” MT from our private group

Along these lines, we find Hillary taking funds, once again, from questionable sources. One can be justified in questioning her ethics.

The Czarina has been recently exposed as an acceptor of fraudulent funds and has theoretically given the funds back. However, this does not absolve her or her campaign minions from the wrong doings. If it were to absolve them, one can extrapolate from that the following scenario: someone kills someone but didn’t really know they did so, telling folks that you did kill someone, somehow absolves you from the consequences of your actions.

This is why we on the right often state the obvious: personal integrity and accepting responsibility for ones own actions is alien to the Leftinistra. When caught doing wrong, it is invariably someones else’s fault or the blame is placed on something else.

As Sunlit Knight from a Newt One has often stated, as an example of the Leftinistra quagmire of self-induced idiocy:

“People don’t make enough money so let’s raise the minimum wage. That is like saying that all of the boats aren’t the same height so let’s add more water to the lake.”

All raising the minimum wage does, as raising the water in the lake, is make the problems worse because there is no change. It is merely a feel-good action…someone can say that they did something and when that something does not have the affect imagined, it must be the fault of something or someone else.

Hillary has proclaimed her religiosity but her actions are quite opposite of that which she claims. Would a religious individual receive illegal contributions for the sake of political gain just to win an election? Isn’t that hypocritical?

When questioned about such activities, the inquiring minds are accused of smearing and being mean-spirited or racially biased.

From the NY Post:

October 20, 2007 — Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been raising huge piles of money in Chinatown, but some of it has come from donors who can’t be located or who were improperly repaid for their contributions, according to The Post and other reports.

A search of Chinatown donors yesterday by The Post found several bogus addresses and some contributions that raised eyebrows.

[…]

The Clinton campaign dismissed the L.A. Times story as derogatory to Chinese-Americans.

[…]

Dear Leftinistra…we don’t but that kind of crap anymore. Even making that kind of lame claim will and does backfire on you in this day and age and it is high time that you try another tactic because this dog don’t hunt no more.

It is high time that the self-alleged Higher Moral Authority within the Leftinistra to be held accountable to their lies.

However, like MT says:

“The beauty of being an atheist is that you have no moral reason to tell the truth. So Pete Stark can claim such outrageous (if stupidly worded) things about the President.” MT from our private group


How true that is, eh?

There is also an editorial at IBD and it is dead nuts on target:

[…]

An ambitious presidential front-runner. A hot scramble for campaign cash. A corner-cutting past. And now red lights are flashing that she could be in hock to foreign interests. This is going downhill fast.

[…]

Naturally, this will be spun as some lame smear campaign because Hillary is such a nice person, even though she has been shown to be a budding Leninist and a Soros pawn.

Hillary and The Socialist Agenda

October 14, 2007

A few facts…to spread around.

Hillary Clinton will raise taxes if she is elected president… Sharply! As her candidacy gains momentum and she closes in on the Democratic nomination, it would be well to review the record and underscore the tax increases she would be likely to enact.

As always, Hillary speaks in code. So here’s the code book. She says that she will “…let President Bush’s tax cuts for top earners expire.” Most people assume that this pledge means that she will raise the top bracket (for those earning more than $200,000 a year) on income taxes from the 35 percent to which Bush cut it, to the 39.6 percent to which her husband raised it in 1993. But, in reality, it means a whole lot more.

It also means increasing the tax on capital gains from the current 15 percent to at least 20 percent and probably to the 30 percent level backed by most liberals. Some even believe she may eliminate capital gains taxation entirely and tax it at the same rate as ordinary income.

She certainly would repeal Bush’s tax cut halving the tax rate on dividends and would raise it from its current 15 percent to 30 percent. She would also most likely end the planned elimination of the estate tax and probably reduce the size of estates subject to the tax.

Robert Novak reports that Rangel’s staff is “hard at work on an audacious plan that over the next decade would redistribute up to a trillion dollars in American income through the tax system.” Rangel, himself, calls the new legislation “the mother of all tax reforms.”

Hillary would likely use the repeal of the AMT (which nobody ever envisioned reaching these levels) as the lynchpin to claim that she is not increasing taxes but just redistributing them so as not to hurt the middle class. But the reality would be a vast increase in tax revenues and a major increase in the redistribution effect of the tax code.

Already the top 1 percent of all taxpayers earn 17 percent of the national income but pay 35 percent of all federal income taxes. And the top 10 percent make one-third of the national income but pay two-thirds of the income tax. The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent of the income tax collections. Hillary will make this curve a lot steeper.

In her own way, Hillary’s views on tax policy are rooted in her religious convictions. As a believing Methodist, she demonstrated the link between her faith and her liberal politics when she said the following, when commenting on Republican proposals to make illegal entry into the U.S. a crime:

“It is hard to believe that a Republican leadership that is constantly talking about values and about faith would put forth such a mean-spirited piece of legislation.”

“It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scripture because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself … We need to sound the alarm about what is being done in the Congress.”

On a more secular level, she told a San Francisco audience in 2004: “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.” And, speaking in New Hampshire on May 30, 2007, she said she would “raise taxes on upper-income Americans and eliminate breaks for corporations.”

She attacks the Bush administration for “going back to the era of the robber barons.” She says, “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few by the few, and for the few. Time to reject the idea of an ‘on your own’ society and to replace it with a shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together society.'”

Behind her rhetoric about shared values and unity, lies the most far reaching tax increase proposals since the days of the New Deal. And, if she is elected, she will likely carry enough Democrats into the Senate (my current estimate is 58) to pass whatever she pleases.

 

Also, I found this editorial at the National Center For Policy Analysis:
Norm
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released its preliminary estimates for Fiscal Year 2007 that ended September 30, and the federal budget deficit fell again, this time by 35 percent to $161 billion, says the Wall Street Journal.

There’s more:

* Since 2004, deficit spending has tumbled by $251 billion, which is one of the most rapid three-year declines in U.S. history.
* The deficit as a share of the economy is down to 1.2 percent or about half the average of the last 50 years.
* This improvement is especially remarkable given the $150 to $200 billion a year of post-9/11 expenses for homeland security and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover:

* Americans coughed up a record $2.568 trillion in taxes to the IRS in 2007, or 6.7 percent more than in 2006.
* This means federal receipts have climbed by $785 billion since the 2003 investment tax cuts, the largest four-year revenue increase in U.S. history. *See Note from Norm
* Income, dividend and capital gains tax rates were all cut in 2003, but individual income tax receipts have soared by 46.3 percent in four years, with payments by the wealthy accounting for most of the windfall.
* Last year’s increase in individual income payments was 11.3 percent, or more than double the rate of growth in nominal GDP.

The overriding lesson here is that the best antidote for deficits is faster growth, not tax increases. The budget deficit has declined more rapidly this decade in the wake of the Bush tax cuts than it did in the 1990s in the wake of the Clinton tax increases. CBO is still forecasting a balanced budget in 2010, but if Congress gets its way on spending and taxes, all of this progress will be short-lived, says the Journal.

*Note from Norm: Simply put, are you paying attention to the facts or Hillary’s quacks

Political Trivia

October 12, 2007

WHO SAID THAT?

You think you know history? Are you a quote scholar?

What was your score? Leave your score(s) and comments in the comment section.

Bet you don’t do well on this quiz!!!!!!

 

Veer-r-r-r-y interesting!

 

A little history lesson. If you don’t know the answer, make your best guess.

 

Answer all the questions before looking at the answers.

 

Who said it?

 

1) “We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

A. Karl Marx B. Adolph Hitler C. Joseph Stalin D. None of the above

2) “It’s time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few…… And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity.

“A. Lenin B. Mussolini C. Idi Amin D. None of the Above

3) “(We) …can’t just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people.”

A. Nikita Khrushchev B. Josef Goebbels C. Boris Yeltsin D. None of the above

4) “We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own … in order to create this common ground.”

A. Mao Tse Dung B. Hugo Chavez C. Kim Jong IL D. None of the above

5) “I certainly think the free-market has failed.”

A. Karl Marx B. Lenin C. Molotov D. None of the above

6) “I think it’s time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched.”

A. Pinochet B. Milosevic C. Saddam Hussein D. None of the above

Scroll down for answers

Answers

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004

(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007

(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007

(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton6/4/2007

(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton6/4/2007

(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005