Comments on: CLINTON CONFIRMATION: Clinton Won’t Ban State Department Security Contractors http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation National News in Context Sun, 04 Mar 2012 13:30:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Blackwater Heir Wants to Keep State Dept. Security Contract http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-63736 Progressive Nation » Blog Archive » Blackwater Heir Wants to Keep State Dept. Security Contract Tue, 11 Aug 2009 05:02:25 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-63736 [...] pledged to ban pri­vate secu­rity firms from con­tract­ing with the gov­ern­ment, but reversed her­self at her con­fir­ma­tion hear­ing to become sec­re­tary of state in [...] [...] pledged to ban pri­vate secu­rity firms from con­tract­ing with the gov­ern­ment, but reversed her­self at her con­fir­ma­tion hear­ing to become sec­re­tary of state in [...]

]]> By: captaindan http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-38206 captaindan Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:43:47 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-38206 should have read : not the security contractors that are the evil; of course two negatives must cancel out. should have read : not the security contractors that are the evil; of course two negatives must cancel out.

]]> By: captaindan http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-38205 captaindan Wed, 14 Jan 2009 21:39:32 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-38205 It is possible that Senator and Secretary of State designee Clinton, has determined that it is not the security contractors are not the evil, instead it is the war profiteering Republican campaign contributors that are the danger. It is possible that Senator and Secretary of State designee Clinton, has determined that it is not the security contractors are not the evil, instead it is the war profiteering Republican campaign contributors that are the danger.

]]> By: modmom http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-38207 modmom Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:41:53 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-38207 Blackwater was a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation-but I'm sure that has nothing to do with this. Blackwater was a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation-but I'm sure that has nothing to do with this.

]]> By: captaindan http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-15569 captaindan Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:43:47 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-15569 should have read : not the security contractors that are the evil; of course two negatives must cancel out. should have read : not the security contractors that are the evil; of course two negatives must cancel out.

]]> By: captaindan http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-15568 captaindan Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:39:32 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-15568 It is possible that Senator and Secretary of State designee Clinton, has determined that it is not the security contractors are not the evil, instead it is the war profiteering Republican campaign contributors that are the danger. It is possible that Senator and Secretary of State designee Clinton, has determined that it is not the security contractors are not the evil, instead it is the war profiteering Republican campaign contributors that are the danger.

]]> By: modmom http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-15560 modmom Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:41:53 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-15560 Blackwater was a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation-but I'm sure that has nothing to do with this. Blackwater was a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation-but I'm sure that has nothing to do with this.

]]> By: debcoop http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-15547 debcoop Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:22:53 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-15547 Who is in charge of troop removal? The Defense dept, is it not? So who do you think actually made this decision? Hillary Clinton or Bill Gates and Barack Obama? Troop withdrawl is not in her purview. This may be the first example of Hillary being the team player she was expected to be by Barack Obama when he chose her, one who enacts his vison. Who is in charge of troop removal? The Defense dept, is it not? So who do you think actually made this decision? Hillary Clinton or Bill Gates and Barack Obama? Troop withdrawl is not in her purview. This may be the first example of Hillary being the team player she was expected to be by Barack Obama when he chose her, one who enacts his vison.

]]> By: SkippyFlipjack http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-15546 SkippyFlipjack Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:02:52 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-15546 I don't think you're a bozo, but I agree otherwise with elRey above. Not only are Clinton's responsibilities different as Secretary of State they they might have been as president so may require different approaches, but she's now a member of Obama's cabinet and as such is an extension of his own views. <br><br>In effect, you're saying that the Obama administration just broke one of his primary opponent's campaign promises. I'll go out on a limb and say that's not exactly unusual. I don't think you're a bozo, but I agree otherwise with elRey above. Not only are Clinton's responsibilities different as Secretary of State they they might have been as president so may require different approaches, but she's now a member of Obama's cabinet and as such is an extension of his own views.

In effect, you're saying that the Obama administration just broke one of his primary opponent's campaign promises. I'll go out on a limb and say that's not exactly unusual.

]]> By: totallynext http://washingtonindependent.com/25232/clinton-confirmation/comment-page-1#comment-15540 totallynext Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:03:53 +0000 http://washingtonindependent.com/?p=25232#comment-15540 they don't need to ban them they just need to put them under US law. they don't need to ban them they just need to put them under US law.

]]>