Okay, I think we got sidetracked here. Lets get back to the core question:

How much of a liability will the Benghazi attack be on Hillary Clinton if she chooses to run in 2016?

You already have one family member (Pat Smith) who outright blames Clinton. You could imagine seeing ads with Smith running saying she blames Clinton for her son's death. That will be a devastating attack ad. There is no way the GOP is going to let this go because it is one of the only blemishes on her record at State.

I can see the attack ad now:

*backdrop of Hillary's "3 AM phone call" ad from 2008.*

"Hillary Clinton said she was capable handling the 3 Am phone call, well on September 11th (deliberate reference), 2012 she got her call and...."

Hopefully she's learned a lesson because her (relative) hawkishness has always come back to bite her in the a__.

I honestly think Hillary thinks she needs to be seen as a "tough" hawk in order to men to take her seriously as Commander-in-Chief. At least in 2008. Times have changed I suppose and I don't think her being a woman will be anything other then a plus going into 2016.

Rand Paul seems to seriously think he is going to be the GOP nominee in 2016 and that he can use this against Hillary.

Pretty much the only reason the Saudis are treated as being so superior to the Iranians is that the U.S. is allied to the Saudi royal family. From a moral standpoint, there's no reason to favor one side over the other. Saudi Arabia is a barbaric country, a desert with a tiny welfare-addicted population, an economy built on an extractive, polluting and unsustainable industry, while sitting amongst a sea of Arab poverty, the only thing they have been skillful at is exporting terrorism for generations, including al Qaeda. Now let's get Netanyahu to Capitol Hill to tell us about the horrors of Hezbollah again.

This. If anything Iran is a much better country to live in for most people then Saudi Arabia. 

It's dehumanizing.

Why? Because you say? It's abuse not to make people as good as possible.

Lol. No, it will be the norm. And there is nothing you can do to stop it. He who stands in the path of the locomotive of history shall surely be run over by it.

It's a good thing. Humanity will be quantifiably better as a result. There really is no logical reason to be against it.

I think Israel might have decided to decapitate Syria's chemical weapons program expecting the inevitable fall of said weapons into the hands of Hezbollah or Syrian Rebels.

[It would need to stick to selectively targeting specifical genes that cause a problem and not making your kid "smarter" or changing their hair color, etc.]

Not entirely horrible, if we stick to correcting legitimate diseases that are genetic. The idea of people actively selecting a myriad of other things, such as "designer babies" or a Gattica-style selection is horrifying though. It would need to stick to selectively targeting specifical genes that cause a problem and not making your kid "smarter" or changing their hair color, etc.

Why? If someone wants to make their child the best and brightest why should they be forced not to? It's inevitable anyways.

Jackson/Dukakis

[you're somewhat forced to use genetic modification after the top bar has been raised]

One of the things that makes me uncomfortable with genetic modification is the forced competition.   If you want your kid to have a decent shot at doing very well in school (relative to other classmates), being accepted to a good college, and going to work in a top job, you're somewhat forced to use genetic modification after the top bar has been raised.

It sounds mean but this is a good thing, it will make society and humanity better. We just need to have to social-democratic infrastructure to ensure equal access.

[stop judging people by their appearance]

The way to avoid sexism is to stop judging people by their appearance or at least have more realistic expectations about appearance.

We're trying to be realistic here.

It’s 1980. President Carter in collusion with the Muslim Brotherhood laughs at a suggestion by Sgt John Everyman, Chief of Getting Things Done, to work on a deal to release the Iranian hostages. Sgt Everyman is disgusted and promises his cancer ridden daughter that he will seek vengeance for Democratic mishandling of the crisis. Luckily, Reagan is elected president in a landslide. Reagan and Everyman were buddies back in ‘Nam so Everyman knows he can trust him.

After saving Reagan’s busty wife Nancy from an attack by Muslims who had poisoned her tarot cards, the two set off to make things right in America battling against Tipp O’Neill, the deadly IRA backed terrorist Democratic chief of the Muslim Overlords Ninja Deadly Assassin League Extreme (M.O.N.D.A.L.E) and Reagan’s estranged son Ron Jr from building a device to block out the sun so it can never be ‘morning in America’ again. Everyman fights back against M.O.N.D.A.L.E’s goons but is heartbroken when O’Neill captures his daughter and gives her treatment for cancer in a public hospital where she will surely die after being injected by the deadly virus SocialAIDS.

Just in time, Reagan bursts in with his new sidekick Gorby, who warns O’Neill of the terrible effect SocialAIDS has had on Russia. Gorby and Reagan free Everyman’s daughter with the help of a local televangelist who was jailed for celebrating Christmas and flee to a private hospital. Everyman disables Ron Jr and then faces O’Neill down in the hospital canteen where after a series of blows, O’Neill drops down dead. Everyman finds on his possession a membership card proving that O’Neil was nothing more than a dirty Muslim Communist. Afterwards, Reagan announces he is stepping down. The whole nation is heartbroken wishing that he could be their President for ever and as a final act of gratitude, Sgt Everyman and his ‘Nam buddies blast an image of Reagan on the side of Mt Rushmore.

Love it.

Cruz at 16%? Yikes.

I know right? This is the real "news" here.

Another reason why Clinton should run.

The Biden plan was not right. The Biden plan was stupid. It's the sort of thing someone who thinks they're an expert because they read a Wikipedia article would come up with.


3 words: Baghdad, mixed city.

What is your proposition? The Shia and Sunni hate each other, and the PKK is relocating it's forces to Northern Iraq.

In the Parliamentary system then no.

But in America if you vote third party you are honestly just wasting your vote. Especially for President. They call it a "two-party system" for a reason, there are really only two parties that are relevant.

Minor factions are better off infiltrating one of the major parties.

I guess the Biden Plan was right all along.

No (Not in favor of repealing the 20th Century)

January 20, 1981

Voted Rubio, but I think Paul has a real shot.

Chris Christie will be the Rudy Giuliani of 2016, IMHO.

Clinton was a terrible President, so LBJ.

God I hope not. The last thing we need to is double down on DLC.

If anything, Clinton will be remembered negatively for his actions that led us to the Great Recession. Plus I doubt he'll get high marks for implementing NAFTA, PNTR with China, ignoring the genocide going on in Rwanda, missing OBL more than once, and other terrible things his administration was complicit in, like the Welfare 'Reform' Act of 1996, the Telecommunications Act, the Digital Millennium Copyright act, the Defense of Marriage Act, or creating Don't Ask, Don't Tell.

The further away his administration gets, the worse it looks. The idea that this man will be remembered as a progressive is also very dubious. If anything, the history books of 2050 will have a section called the 'Second Gilded Age' that starts with Reagan and includes Clinton.

Point of Order: Civilians were free to exit their houses and go outside if they wanted.

There's only space for one more head, and IMO it's reserved for FDR.

I wish him the best. As much as I disagree with him he really is a true believer in his cause.