Hillary Clinton says she'll vote against funding the Iraq war!
By John Amato Saturday Sep 22, 2007 2:05pmGood for her. This is the right vote and the Democratic Party should keep voting this way no matter how Bush responds.
RUSSERT: As you well know you voted to authorize this war, voted to fund this war at lest ten times. Are you now saying that you will not vote one more penny for the war in Iraq.
Clinton: And these extraordinary brave young men and women should begin to come home out of refereeing this sectarian civil war. I voted against funding last spring - I understand we are going to have vote shortly about funding and I will vote against it. Because I think it's the only way that we can demonstrate clearly that we have to change direction...(full transcript below the fold)
HRC: Tim I am saying that. You know I've been guided by what I believe is the principle that should govern any decisions that any member of the senate and any one in public life makes and that is I try to do what is best for my country and for the troops who serve it. And I have seen no evidence that this administration is willing to change course in any significant way. We're now nearly at 3800 dead, we have more than 30,000 injured, the Iraqi government has failed to fulfill its part of the bargain to deal with the political issues that all of us know have to be addressed. I don't think the Bush administration has pursued the diplomatic agenda the way that it needed to be pursued and there is no military solution.
And these extraordinary brave young men and women should begin to come home out of refereeing this sectarian civil war. I voted against funding last spring - I understand we are going to have vote shortly about funding and I will vote against it. Because I think it's the only way that we can demonstrate clearly that we have to change direction. The president has not been willing to do that and he still has enough support among the Republicans in the senate that he doesn't have to. And so on occasion after occasion I have made it clear that if the president does not begin to extricate us from Iraq before he leaves office - which apparently, based on what he himself has said, he will not - when I am president I will immediately ask my Secretary of Defense, the Join Chiefs of Staff, and my security advisors to tell me exactly what the state of play is. I don't think we even know everything we need to know about what the plans for withdrawal are, how best to implement that and I will. And our involvement at the level we've seen has not proven to be successful.
Login or Register to post comments.
Sigh of relief. Nice to hear a little common sense.
Hillary is pathetic. Why didn't she vote against it before? Because until now, it hasn't fit in with her election campaign, that's why.
I don't think I've ever been first before! Maybe once before. Bit of a thrill. Simple pleasures, blah blah blah.
The thing I don't trust about Hillary is she just seems to say what she thinks people want to hear. I didn't used to think she was like that - but now I fear she is owned by big money just like every other scum sucking politician. I wish Kucinich weren't so ignored, probably because he's not a scum sucker...
How soon before she parrots Sen. Warner "I endorsed it. I intend now to cast a vote against it"?
You don't need a weather vane when you've got Hillary.
Cameron @ 2:
Your Right, but at this point I'll accept whatever get's our soldiers out of Bush's bad business deal in Iraq. Our soldiers should be supported and I say better late then never, she can't erase her mistakes from the past but she can get on the right side of this issue now and that's just find with me. (still hope we have a better choice in 08, Richardson would be my candidate, but I'll take any Democrat over ANY Republican.
"The thing I don’t trust about Hillary is she just seems to say what she thinks people want to hear."
LOL!! All politicians do that. A front runner in a political race is attacked by any and all challengers from both sides as being a "flip-flopper" or pandering. Republicans ,of course, have polished this tactic to it's extreme and the "media" runs with it.
I'll believe it when I see it
Good for her, my ass!! Some time soon, I predict, we are going to stop acting and thinking like young children.
If Hillary and the other leaders of the Party wanted to stop the funding of the war, it wouldn't be an issue of one or two or 15 people not voting to fund it, they could simply filibuster any funding bill attempted to be brought to a vote.
The fact that Hillary is now saying that she will vote against funding means absolutely nothing. UNLESS, she does what she has the power to do which is orchestrate the voting so that enough Democrats vote against to stop all funding. UNLESS she does that, her vote against funding is simply a political ploy. We know she (and her ilk) have the power to orchestrate such a vote, so unless she does it, we should recognize this as simply her powerbroking for votes and nothing more.
However, I'm sure this comment line will be full of people that actually believe this silliness.
She correctly identifies her 2002 vote as giving Bush the authorization to use military force against Iraq IF it failed to co-operate with the U.S. and U.N. inspectors (it didn't fail to do so), if it failed those inspections (it didn't fail those inspections) or if those inspections showed Iraq was a threat to our national security (they didn't show that Iraq was a threat to our national security or anyone elses).
It was the right vote.
It was NOT a vote "for the war". Everyone who has read the authorization knows this. Moreover, IF it was a vote "for the war", why in the world did we wait amost six months to make our move into the country? So Hussein would have time to gear up his supposed WMD for the big game? Of course not. It was an authorization to use force IF Iraq failed the inspection process. It did not. And the inspectors were TELLING us Iraq was not failing that inspection process weeks before Bush invaded anyway.
Again, as Hillary correctly identified her vote, it was a vote that might lead to war IF the insepections revealed the above qualfiers (they didn't). However, Bush abused the authorization she voted for by taking America to war with Iraq despite the fact that none of the stipulations for invasion in that authorization had been met.
Like John Kerry before her, she is the ONE candidate from both sides of the aisle who best understands the reality of the issues and has the smartest, best answers for how to address them to AMERICA'S benefit.
Whether or not enough of the American electorate will fail to recognize and appreciate that about Hillary Clinton this time as badly as they failed to recognize and appreciate it about John Kerry in 2004 in order to avoid another 4 years of disaster remains to be seen.
As the saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink."
It seems like this should be a no brainer for every presidential candiate regardless of party. Bush is going to hand a mess to whoever tales office but at least get the bum to START cleaning up.
Other than stop funding the war, she also said she would support public funding of elections. If we could get there, that would take the war profiteers out of the election process. It would take the corporate lobbyists out of our elections. It could gives us back our democracy.
I like Hillary because of Bill, not because of Hillary. I believe the BigDog being back in Wash. could really help this Country when we need it most. It also doesn't hurt that the Repubes will take a shot or two in the mouth from it as well. I think the LAST person they want to see anywhere close to the most powerful person on the planet is Bill Clinton, and that's enough reason for me to vote for her, if she gets the nod.
Hell, at least someone is recognizing that it's politically smart to vote against the war.
My bile curdles every time one of these politicians says the phrase "Brave young men and woman" or "Our Heros"
Shut the fuck up you empty jackasses... You sound like Repiglicans...
Especially when you are simply looking for more percentage points...
Oh... thats right you are.
Now excuse me as I go have an enema.
She'll vote to defund Iraq while she stokes the flames of conflict with Iran.
Come on people, this is a politician talking out of both sides of her mouth.
They really should be asking her whether she'll fund the Iran war.
Ron @ 13:
It would... but then she would never get elected in the first place, After all where has she gotten her massive stack from??????? --which is why we hear about her being a goddamn front runner to begin with, is not because she has the best ideas, heart, conviction, ethics, and so on... IT is because she has the MOST MONEY, that she is the front runner...and because Obama has raised the second most.. he is in second place..
It is so disgusting...
It is because of that garbage ponzi scheme, that the best candidates cannot get elected...or even barely heard... and certainly never seriously considered by the largely sleepwalking populace.
Hilary joined in the hysteria saying Adiminejad should be allowed no where near ground zero.
the only way you can take this position is if you share the perception that Iran had something to do with 911.
If you feel it is because of Iran's link to terrorism, can't deny there is some of that. But Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Isreal all commit acts of terrorism. None of them should be allowed near ground zero either.
More election year bullshit.
Sorry. I can't believe a word either party says anymore.
So she is saying that she has assurances from the majority of democrats that they will vote for it and let her get by not voting for it like they have many votes over the past several months?
"The anti-christ will promise you many things during the tribulations." Hebrews, 4:20
Saying what the people want to hear.
Then having the guts to vote wrong anyway.
A true leader in reverse.
Kucinich
It's easy to trash Hillary Clinton - the right and the media have been doing it for years so there's no shortage of negative perspectives. Clinton may change to voters' needs and desires but don't we need a leader who listens to voters and changes to reflect thoses voters? Our current leaderers ignore polls and do exactly what THEY want.
We have George Bush who epitomizes this country's view of maleness: war games, bull headedness, arrogance, one upmanship, control, abuse of power... Isn't it time to try a leader that will take a different approach to solving this nations problems?
Can this country survive another male president?
A bunch of people have figured out its politically smart to be against Operation Neo-con FuckUp, from Powell to Greenspan to Hagel to Tweety (tweety, of all people, now if someone That dumb figures it out, woo boy) it was only a matter of time before one of the spinelesscrats caught on.
But does Hillary have what it takes to stick the bill and the blame for this mess where it belongs? Or will she go the way of many spinelesscrats and take it from the rethugs? Will she be able to do what previous great presidents have done - be honest with America about what our problems and challenges are, and have the leadership to rally our collective efforts around solving those problems?
My bet is she will do what all DC slugs do best, take care of #1 first.
You know what was missing on today's appearances was that little message at the end that says "My name is Hillary Clinton and I approve of this message."
Without it, she may be able to claim she wasn't representing herself.
Who Profits from this mess?
War and Terror Inc.
By Douglas Farah
Sunday, September 23, 2007; Page B01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/21/AR200709...
Wow. Brilliant move- I'd forgotten how crafty these Clintons are.
Here we go again, the weapons inspectors were NOT " kicked out " in 1998 , repeating the same BS the right wing , Butler pulled them out , as a matter a fact the inspectors were contaminated with spies , gathering info for a future attack . Clinton knows damn well , they were not "kicked out" .
Google - Iraq, inspectors, 1998. It's appalling how even the msm, first reported they were "pulled out by Butler " then reported several years later , they were kicked out . FAIR.ORG has many statements in 1998 and later , on how the media changed the story, into a lie .
Also little Timmy , you would THINK the accusation from Greenspan that the war was about OIL , the reason hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were butchered , and something bush has always lied about , you would think that would be the FIRST and most important question , requiring some time to discuss , nawww, he diverted to the old gotcha , making an issue of Greenspan liking bill clinton .
After 10 questions or so , FINALLY Timmy decided it was time to bring up OIL , allowing Greenspan to give some ludicrous answer , that Saddam want to block the Straights of Hormuz, after he got nuclear weapons . We'll that was an impossibility , he was under heavy sanctions , didn't have a nuclear program and besides , Saddam wanted to sell as much oil as he could to survive , so Greenspan was correct it was about OIL, but for different reasons , control of Iraq's oil , he was right , for the wrong reasons .
Greenspan is filth and I don't trust Hillary Clinton .
Eva Lawler @ 25:
Not a republican, but I don't think they want to win in 2008. I think they want to leave this mess in the hands of the democrats. I will try to explain my opinions later.
She also said today (on ABC), in response to a MoveOn.org question:
"I don't condone attacks on any American who has served our country honorably and with dedication the way General Petraeus has."
This, after the much ballyhooed Senate vote the other day. Imagine, Petraeus is an honorable man.
I believe nothing she says.
Eva Lawler @ 25:
Right, because the only thing wrong with Bush is his gender...
Yes, Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, Pelosi... all women, all have done diddly squat to end the ward or change the satus quo. Thinking that a female president will be better just because of her gender is naive, if not idiotic.
She could dump palladium coins and platinum bullion, into my basment untill my house was on top of a giant mountain of precious metals..
And she still does not have my vote...
Why would I give her my vote when she is giving us all nothing but BAT SQUEEZE?
Come on, folks. You have to give Hillary credit that she bothered to learn the game. She's been fighting people like this her whole life, and if being a pandering ass is what gets her ahead and wins elections, then so be it. I have no problem with that. But by God, if you do that, you better damn well be the best president who ever ran this country.
My deepest disgust is that in spite of all the dirty tricks, lies and evil manipulation the Bush administration has pulled, they've still managed to do a horrible piss-poor job at runnung this country.
I have no problem with putting a coniving weasel in the White House as long as he/she does the job well.
How very principal'd of her!
Good gawd, have I fallen into the Little Green Footballs forum?
By all means, Ms. Clinton, say what the people DON'T want to hear, so they'll have a better reason for hating you. Don't EVER say what they want to hear, because then they're not going to believe you anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's the Clinton Curse. No matter how good Bill was to the Repub party agenda, they hated him anyway and will hate him for eternity.
The so-called liberal media's hatchet job on Ms. Clinton is almost complete, with the icing on the cake being the vitriol posted on blogs. What a pile-on.
I don't give a crap. If she's the nominee, I'll vote for her. They all change once they preside in the Oval Office. Every last one of them. Even the anti-christ, as one poster so fondly referred to her, is better than the anti-christ to the nth power, Ghouliana.
Wait a goddamned minute. I'm not buyin' this shit just yet. All these politicians are all talk and no action. Now if she actually votes against it, then yeah, I'll believe her, obviously. Until then, not a chance in hell.
The Champ is out.
Eva Lawler @ 25:
Woah...
How did I miss this pile?
Well all I can say to this is...
If you really believe what you wrote... Good luck to you on election day.. I am predicting you are going to be very alone... as most people can see through her BULLSHIT, years of media spin on her or not (not that they have been very negative of her... even David Brooks is nesting in her lower intestine---and the rest are enamored and honored to call her a front runner)..
Due to a large portion of who I am seeing on the internet totally unmoved by her and the other front runners superficial, and plastic statements and actions. If it was not such a critical period in time, there would probably be a few million that vote period...
Sure plenty will hold their nose and vote for Hillary...
I however will not.. and I know there are at least 5 people out there that will join me in that refusal...
It is not because of her gender...
As Maxine Waters would get my vote in a second... but then again she is a bit to real to run.
Hillary kicked butt this morning on MTP and Timmy attacked her at all ends. Yes Timmy forgot about how his buddies in the White House lied on him in the Libby case. Timmy was scared and looking for support during his hour of need. Once cleared he's back to sucking up to the GOP. Hillary explained that on one has to support a comment but they do have to respect a point of view as he asked about the Swift Boat attack on John Kerry. There were no media out cry nor did the White House say it was wrong but supported it. It's really isn't MoveOn.org's fault because the White House announced they would give the report but released no one believes the Liar-in-Chief so they sent Petraeus to do it. Question to the media what would have been said different?
Hillary:
Timmeh:
This sums up Hillary for me.
I no longer care what a politician says. I care what they do, and what they have done.
That's funny -- on the exact same show (or was it one of the other three I saw her on this morning) she claimed that she was against a timeline for withdrawal, because it "emboldens terrorists" or something to that effect.
She's a big phony.
By the way, Straight Shooter, saying you'll vote for her is like saying you'll vote for Kodos. We need a real progressive in there, not a wolf in sheep's clothing. But I'll grant you that she's still better than Guiliani.
And of course it's "when I am president I will do (such and such)". She won't do anything now but make excuses, but when she is president, watch out! How many times have we heard this?
It seems HRC has backed off the 'I will end war' position.
She also said today (on ABC), in response to a MoveOn.org question:
“I don’t condone attacks on any American who has served our country honorably and with dedication the way General Petraeus has.”
This, after the much ballyhooed Senate vote the other day. Imagine, Petraeus is an honorable man.
I believe nothing she says.
Translation from politico-speech, for your benefit. "I voted against that stupid motion, I am not about to get sucked into a debate on Petraeus's credibility as a distraction from the important issues, I am not going to give you a dramatic sound bite, and that's the last ten seconds of valuable air time I am wasting on this topic."
Very smart, very aware that she is appearing on a hostile television show, not a neutral debate club meeting. Made me more likely to vote for her, but everything depends on who gets on board to fight the Iran war funding in the senate.
Yes, the Iran war, the one that is going to start the Neocon's World War IV. We are going to be extremely lucky if any restraints are made on Iraq funding, but if nothing at all happens, Cheney has picked Iran as the next battleground. He doesn't need Lieberman's amendment, he just has to know that no one will complain until after the first round of bombs hit. Watch the military grapevine for signs that Admiral Fallon is being bypassed by air force generals.
Yes..
This is the Freerepublic & Little Green Football blog...
Because we are sick of being lied to... sick of voting for ineffectual parasites... and even sicker of letting them slide because they wear a D near their name...
But no where near as sick of we are of YOU... who continue to enable the same slide that will occur no matter which GHOUL is in office.
BOTH CLINTONS IN THE WHITE HOUSE IN '08 EQUATES TO MORE OF THE SAME OLD SHIT...DIFERENT DAY , DIFERENT LABLES.
Eva Lawler @ 25:
That sounds more like a list of complaints from someone who just broke up with a dude, and don't necessarily represent male traits in general. To give an example on how absurd it is to generalize candidates based off of being male or female, consider who represents those traits you mentioned more, Margaret Thatcher or Mahatma Gandhi?
Seriously, using the sex of the candidate is probably one of the worst criteria you can use to judge weather to vote for that person. I'll grant you to point that both sexes tend to statistically gravitate to displaying certain traits both positive and negative, and sometimes a culture can push those traits even farther out. However, averages don't represent individuals and any person can display nearly any combinations of traits.
Furthermore, if woman were actually better at ruling the world (or a country), we'd mostly be living under matriarchies by now. Any look at the historical record will reveal that women as rulers have been a mixed bag and not something that has been inherently better or worse then their male contemporaries.
Finally, even if you take the list seriously, consider what the weakness of Democrats have been. Namely they have been unwilling or unable to stand up for themselves. So I think a bull headed Democrat for example, may not be such a bad thing. We already have Nancy Pelosi as house speaker, and she has refused to even consider impeaching the criminals in the white house, and hasn't passed substantial legislation yet (Reid of course is also at fault). Not that it matters either way, none of the other Democratic candidates actually seem to be any more or less aggressive then Hillary Clinton (except maybe the peace monger Dennis Kucinich).
Midland @ 45:
Better not read this then: http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=10808
that's funny...b/c in her interview on fox noise w/ chris wallace, she assured his viewers that the troops would stay in irak. she also assured them that health care would not change.
i don't believe a word that comes outta ms. bushlite. she will say anything to get elected, to pump the base up.
i'm ready for a woman president, but i'm MORE ready for a president who cares more about america and freedom and justice and THE PEOPLE and human life than war profiteers. corporatist. hack.
thank you for that link marbotty. just what i was looking for. sending to my mom, a hillary fan.
straight shooter-
no, not LGF, just people who have eyes and ears and are reading, listening, watching.
she contradicted herself AT LEAST three times in one day in 3 different interviews with regards to iraq. she voted ten times to continue the war, and what, now that primaries are around the corner, she's going to try and start appealing to people who want to believe her? too little too late babe. and i'll wager that she'll be right on top of iran.
i'm supporting kucinich who is the only candidate, aside from gravel, who is serious about ending american empirical aggression.
if you vote for hillary, you're not paying attention.
It's about time. Our "front runner" is finally catching up to us.
don't put her down when she's doing the right thing.
Can someone point me to a blog that is pro-democrat? All I can find are these venemously hateful, anti-democrat, anti-Clinton sites. Thanks in advance for your help.
PurplePatriot @ 55:
Wow, that's like saying if you don't support Bush you're anti-American.
oldgringo @ 47:
Rest easy. I'm sure you'll have nothing to worry about. You'll all do quite well, I'm sure, in giving the white house to the republicans again.
More of the same, my ass. Have you been living in a cave for the last 6 years?
marbotty @ 56:
Yeah, exactly. That's exactly like saying that. Exactly. Thank you, Einstein. Go back to writing for Bill'O.
[Are we starting to fight here? Sitemonitor]
14All @ 15:
That's my feelings exactly. Politicians will always be politicians. But it really is the politically popular thing to do now..The Dems should start to realize it, and grow some balls!
If she become president she will look at the intelligence before she decide what to do?
Are you all happy with that answer?
kind of vague to me, and also allow a loophole for her to continue the war.
paranoia @ 60:
Well, she promises to do more than Bush ever did.
PurplePatriot @ 55:
So with your obvious mental dominance with your ability to find glorious things about Hillary that at the same time is totally unable to find places on the internet that reflect your brilliance...
It has never occurred to you that there may be a reason ..a valid reason for our severe disapproval???
Or is there a paycheck in there that blinds you to that hyper obvious point?
Just remember who it is we're talking about here.
I too will believe it when I see it. And after I hear all the qualifiying remarks she'll make to go along with that vote.
You don’t need a weather vane when you’ve got Hillary.
YUP.
PurplePatriot @ 57:
Have you been in a time capsule for the last 20?
Repig... Demo ... The difference over the last few decades is one pushes us down the stairs... and the other one shoves us.
Doctor Who @ 33:
Well said, Doctor Who. Sexism comes in many forms, and it appalls me every time I hear somebody say something like this.
rduke @ 62:
I can find a gazillion reasons to disapprove of anyone who has ever warmed a seat in congress. But I can find four gazillion reasons that the democrats need to beat the republicans. There is nothing glorious about her, or any of the others. Please point out where I said that, and I'll retract.
I just reserve my most venemous hatred for those who most deserve it.
This is the same old crap. She can say anything she wants now, knowing full-well that the Dem's don't have the votes needed in the Senate to do anything. Hell, she could introduce a bill tomorrow to require every Republican in Washington D.C. to jump on a bicycle with the seat missing, and it doesn't matter because they don't have the votes.
Here's what I'm looking for in a candidate:
anti-war
anti-imperialist
pro-environment
pro-universal healthcare
pro-education
not a corporate schill
I believe these are very much Democratic values. I believe that only a pair of possible candidates fit the bill, one of which is Kucinich, and the other is not running currently (Gore). Kucinich is also the only one that has left no doubt that he'll pursue peace, has created a plan to make healthcare available to americans, and has actually shown courage (not triangulation) when it comes to dealing w/ the current President. Hell, he's even drawn up plans for impeachment.
I am lukewarm on Edwards and Obama. Hillary, through her actions and words, has proven to me to be the closest candidate in philosophy to the field of Republicans. Even some of her talking points mirror some of the talking points of the Bush/1Cheney administration.
How is it being anti-Democratic by rejecting the candidate furthest away from what are supposed to be some of the core values of liberalism?
Mods: feel free to delete this if you think I am engaging in a flame war --- just felt the need to cast off the "Bill-O" tag attributed to me.
After reading most of these comments, it's clear that the republican party all think alike and have the same agenda and the democratic party is made of liberals, moderates, progressives, etc. that all can't seem to agree on the same issues; and that's what gets us fucked every time. Meanwhile the repugs just laugh at us as they pass us by...
rduke @ 64:
Back away from the bong for a minute. Compare 1930's Germany to the Bush administration. Then compare it to the Clinton administration. My guess is you'll find that one adminstrations actions will remind you over and over of the things that went on back then. There is a difference. Just like there is a difference between Hitler, and those who could have stopped him had they really known what was going to happen.
If you can credibly argue that the neocon, socially totalitarian republican party is no different than the democratic party, then you need to write a book. I'll buy it ... if you adequately endnote it.
Of course Hillary wants to cut funding for Iraq. How else will she be able to afford a war with Iran when she takes office.
She also voted to support the Republican BS condemnation of Moveon.org like a good little sheeple. she is a liar, pure and simple.
Bingo!
"It would… but then she would never get elected in the first place, After all where has she gotten her massive stack from??????? –which is why we hear about her being a goddamn front runner to begin with, is not because she has the best ideas, heart, conviction, ethics, and so on… IT is because she has the MOST MONEY, that she is the front runner…and because Obama has raised the second most.. he is in second place..
It is so disgusting…
It is because of that garbage ponzi scheme, that the best candidates cannot get elected…or even barely heard… and certainly never seriously considered by the largely sleepwalking populace."
And over the past 6 years of Republican rule the money power has grown and grown and grown and I wonder if we'll ever get our country back. It's very sad and very frustrating.
RuckQ @ 67:
Thank You!
She the leader and heir apparent of the DLC == knows full well how her DLC minions will be voting. That is, voting to make sure her Nay vote will mean squat.
People are so gullible sometimes.
And about her 2002 vote -- the vote to authorize war -- she gave Bush the GO AHEAD to attack with her vote and rhetoric. Why -- because she voted against Levins Amendment that would have made Bush come back to the UN and congress...
People are so cultish sometimes.
Have to give her credit, she is good at the double talk. Didn't anyone notice she didn't say we would get out of Iraq if she is president, but that we will not be there at our present levels. Same old same old. They are all making so much money they don't give a crap. I am not interested in this BS, I want us OUT OF IRAQ, NOT JUST AT THE CURRENT LEVELS!!!! Kucinich says we will get out of Iraq and we should be out now. The more the rest of them open their mouths the better and better he looks!
marbotty @ 68:
I respect your every notion ... and don't even disagree (except I might think you a little naive if you think Gore is some sort of Capra-esque politician of the people). It's only anti-democratic indirectly. Your hatred may not lead you to vote against the democrats in the general, but many of the haters here have stated that is exactly what they'll do. That will only help the republicans. Therefore, it is effectually anti-democratic.
Eva Lawler @ 25:
Isn't it better to look at the qualifications and ignore the sex? If you want examples of bad women leaders and politicians, look at the women Democrats who supported the FISA piece of garbage: Dianne Feinstein, Amy Klobuchar, Claire McCaskill, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln, Barbara Mikulski.
That's 6 ouf of 11 female Democratic congresscritters who voted yes on this crap. More than 50% .
10 out of 38 male Democratic congresscritters voted for it. Around 25%.
Do you still want to make the case that women are automatically better than men?
tas @ 72:
Can you provide a link to document that?
It's Me @ 11:
So ignoring completely the fact that Iraq didn't attack us in 2001, that the attackers weren't from, near, or next to Iraq? That they were in fact 15 Saudi Arabians and four other NON-IRAQI persons? That bin Laden was in Afghanistan at the time? That Saddam had never been credibly proven to have posed a threat to the United States, either then or at any time before?
No, it was the fucking wrong vote. All the time. The thing for her to do is fucking admit it and get over it. Edwards did. I'm not happy about it but I can respect it.
tas @ 72:
She voted Nay actually (no surprises there -- the vote still was AGREED to with DLC help of course)... However, the best thing she could have done is what Obama did, that is, not even giving the republicans the time of day with that bogus, pathetic, distraction of a vote.
Ali @ 73:
I agree with everything you said. I have no idea how we get our country back (although I'm skeptical we ever had it ... rich people have always run this country).
My argument is that the Bush crowd (and there are more to take his place) are worse. Worse. Not your average slimy shithead politicians, but profoundly worse. So lets at least put out the house fire, before we start to clean the house.
PurplePatriot @ 77:
Yeah, I don't think she did.
But I can also understand a lot of people imagining she did. She's such a good centrist that it seems natural for her to cave and go with whatever the Bush position is if she thinks someone might criticize her. Her goal seems to be to avoid criticism.
hiller clinton will say what you want to hear untill she snookers you out of your vote , then like a nixon who prommised a secrete plan to end the vietnam war jam it up your ass , she will not deliver , no return of habius, no cutting off the tax titty the rich got from the chumpy, or the oil tax breaks for the greedy bastards that bleed us at the gas pumps anytime they god damned please, shes a repig allways was allways going to be, shes another liberman a repig by any other name, and the names hillery clinton, what youll wind up with if this womans a good old shit sandwich, the only demo running that thinks like us is that sawed off runt that lived the real life of many americans includeing haveing to wear hand me downs and liveing with his family in a car as a youngster, dennis kucinich , the rest all of them were from a proviliged class of people ,is that where you grew up ? working class people are the same as dog shit on thier lawns ,i wont vote for more of the same kind of pricks weve been forced to vote for ,id rather die in the streets fighting them!
tas @ 72:
No she did not. She voted no. But she did make a statement on t.v. either yesterday or today that she doesn't think such an admirable man as Petraeus should be criticized.
It's Me @ 11:
She LIED she voted to give the GO AHEAD TO BUSH.
Because she voted NAY on the Levin Amendment that would have made Bush come back to the UN and Congress.
Get your facts right.
If Hillary wants to lead America, why is it she has not taken charge and inspired even the Democrats?
I am not motivated by this person.
reciprocity @ 85:
That convinces me. Romney '08!
PurplePatriot @ 70:
I will back away from the bong... when you stop huffing Gasoline and Rubber cement...(and when you offer me some evidence that bong participation is detrimental to those that partake)
( http://www.jci.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/3104 )
( http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/SC0709/S00040.htm )
Perhaps you should start puffin reefers..
Now...
Don't try to give me some half assed comparison of Bush/Hitler... As I wrote the fucking book on that subject years ago, and it will lead to parallels in discussion that are not allowed to be discussed on this blog.
So do not open that door... unless you REALLY are ready for the answers... Which for you being a rabid Hillary/Clinton Supporter is kinda doubtful.
And all I need to say to unravel your entire premise is...
Bush would not of been able to do HALF the shit he has done...
If not for the Bill Clinton administration.
Look at all the problems we have... and look at where a large portion of their roots stem...
If not for Clinton... There would be no Bush...
And now.. After Bush has embraced and expanded upon what Bill had enabled... Do you think that Hillary will reverse all of that?? or continue in that practice???
Once they take power... They do not let go of it... Same goes for Civil Rights...Liberty... and everything else worth anything in this nation.
You think those 5 corporations that Bill Clinton enabled to Consolodate the Media.. are just going to stay 5.. or does that even matter when they are really one big unit anyway...
shit man...
www.theyrule.net
Go play around on this site for 20 min.. if that does not open your eyes.. nothing will
Notice she did not say she will begin to withdraw the troops as president. Her words are purposeful and voting to not fund the war further is a good start but what does it mean? She said she will ask the leaders on the ground and the secretary of defense what the strategy is... She said George hasn't been willing to change course...what does she mean by that? Are her intentions to change course only... or get them out of this mess?
She straddled the fence for some time on her stance of withdrawal and it really isn't clear what it is now. Her words were chosen carefully and she knows that politically she will continue to choose her words carefully...
How many ads is it going to take, Hillary?
How much push will be needed before you shove? Push, after all, comes before shove and I have not seen you really pushing, until the tide seemed to swell after the Betray US ad...
Do you have a plan? What is it?
Might I suggest it be to continue the hardnosed drive to changing the rhetoric about the reasons we stay in Iraq and the reasons we need to exit as soon as humanly possible. Don't just mention the 3,800 US troops as a cost, but mention at all turns the Iraqi proce paid of nearly one million lives! Mention the cost! Mention the rising tide against our aggression!
Mention these things each and every time!
Why? Because this war (occupation) is only about oil llubricating the engine of hegemony which is driving this country toward the abyss at a breakneck speed and we damn well know it! Time is not on our side, Hillary...
The neocons are down on one knee and you've the chance to run past them with a majority of the country behind you and to call for peace and change our foreign policy so this kind of total fiasco of greed doesn't happen again and we begin to be the beacon to the world we've been claiming to be all these years!
Get out of bed with interests and big corp! Take Dennis Kucinich as a running mate and become a real leader! Break the goddamned mold! Not because you are a woman but because you know the truth of our march into Iraq! Empire's greed will only land us in eternal war with the world and they, the world, will not go away kindly!
The grand experiment that was Iraq, the neocon wet dream, while driven by the corporates and the elite had best be stemmed by the next president and we had better restore the constitution to its original state or prepare to kneel!
Until I see you are willing to speak of peace and not of US interests you'll be on my radar as another shill for the powers that be.
Surprise me, Hillary! Surprise me! Surprise the friggin' world!
Shock the neocon androids back to their own personal hell and usher in a peaceful world without profit but the mere idea of peace!
Give us something we can chew on not regurgitated talking points and spin...Give us something palatable for the country and the world. You've the mind to change your corporate lines into songs of hope.
If you can deliver this path before the election, if you can show us that you are willing to go the distance and struggle toward peace all the while getting us the hell out of Iraq... you may well have a chance of staving off America's demise.
PurplePatriot @ 80:
Uhmm... 98% of that post..
Was quoted what I said.
Hmmm... I love Hillary! She is so great. I can't wait until she becomes president, and then everything will be just like I want it to be.
xoxoxo
rduke @ 87:
I'm not a rabid Hillary supporter. I'm a rabid Bush/GOP hater.
Please enlighten me on why Bush and Bill Clinton are equally spawn of Hitler's evil semen. I believe that the cabal that landed GWB (Cheney) in the white house started well before Clinton even had a chance to take his first dump in the white house (Rummy, Wolfowitz, et al). My belief is that every politician loves his money. I also believe that dems love it at almost any cost. While the Bush/Cheney crowd loves it at absolutely any cost.
But please share your knowledge with me ... I am sooooo READY, I can't stand it. (I don't mean that sarcastically. I really want to hear it.)
At least she does the right thing when pushed. I am voting Kucinich in the primary, but I will be happy to vote for Hillary when she gets the nomination.
rduke @ 89:
Oh. Well I take it back then. I don't agree with a damn word of it.
Dick Cheney @ 90:
Everything already is the way you want it to be, fuckwad.
PurplePatriot @ 93:
:D
PurplePatriot @ 55:
What an odious comment. Are liberals supposed to walk lock step behind the perceived (i.e. DLC appointed) front runner because they have a D. after their name?
Of course not. The primary is a vetting process and to meekly accept everything that Clinton or any other Democrat says without critically thinking about the issues, is undemocratic as well as moronic.
But to answer your question Purple Patriot, head on over to the DLC website. They'll give you all the Clinton monkey love you could ever want.
As for the rest of us we'll practice democracy and critical thinking skills, and call a spade a spade.
Juba @ 96:
Odious ... hang on, I'm looking that up ....
Heretic @ 92:
Having your cake and eating it too. Very nice.
Juba @ 96:
Dude, if you've actually read my posts, and you still think I meekly accept anything, then that word moronic may just work against you. But I've got to go look that word up too. I'll get back to you.
Dahgrostab'ph-r-i @ 7:
My thoughts exactly. Listen, it seems like we all have a beef one way or another with Hillary. But think of the alternative: Guiliani? Romney? Thompson? All war mongers and quite frankly, assholes. Besides, if we get Hillary, we also get Bill. Saw him on TDS last week. It makes me long for the good old days. So if Hillary it is, she is by FAR the lesser of all evils. And if she really does vote against funding the war AGAIN, alot of my faith will be restored.
rduke @ 46:
I guess you're sick of all the money I donate to causes like NRDC, Democratic campaigns, and MoveOn, needless to mention all the time I spend endeavoring to end the fucking war?
I happen to be sick of all-or-nothing cut your nose off to spite your face smartasses. Go Cheney yourself.
The current alternatives are Dennis, John, Barack, Christopher, Joe baby etc.
PurplePatriot @ 98:
Purple Patriot, after reading this exchange I can see your not interested in intelligent discourse and should be ignored.
I’ll use an analogy (which I’m sure will get torn to pieces by the Kucinich crowd … but they’re welcome to it, because part of me actually would like them to succeed in convincing me that voting against Hillary in the GENERAL, and hating her from here to there, is a good idea).
===========
Imagine you were a customer of a large natural gas company (Company A). You have problems with how this gas company does some things. It does good things, like heat your home, but you can’t get past the fact that they won’t pay 100% of their employees’ health care. Plus you’re pissed off that the CEO of the gas company makes 3000% of what the average employee makes. Both noble concerns. There does happen to be another company out there, who is a little different (Company B). They offer free daycare. They pay 5% more on healthcare; and their CEO only makes 2500% of what the average employee makes. But while they’re a little different, You’ve decided they’re just not different enough. You’re not going to give them your business either, because you believe there should be a company that pays 100% healthcare and the CEO shouldn’t be lousy with money.
So you’ve heard this guy saying, “You know what. Fuck ‘em all. We should all just fire them all. Tell them to come unhook your service because you refuse to give them your money anymore. Eventually they’ll come around, or go out of business.”
“Yeah, fuck those guys. That’ll teach ‘em.”, you think to yourself. So you do it. Perfectly within your rights, and even a noble gesture. You’ve made a decision to take a stand on principle; you even wrote them a letter telling them why.
Your service got unhooked as you asked. Not surprisingly, your letter never got answered. In fact, some 8$ hour clerk read it, laughed, and threw it in the trash. But that’s okay, you still have your principles. And you’re cold; but that’s okay too, you made this decision knowing that.
In the meantime a homeless guy living under an overpass has started a campaign to raise capital to start his own gas company that will be exactly the way you believe comanies should be. You throw all of your support behind him.
You tell your friends to do the same. Most of them say, “Dude, fuck off. My kids need heat. Today.”
You say, “No. Fuck you. You’re what’s wrong with this country. We could win this if you weren’t such a pussy.”
Then one of your friends mentions that he hates all of the gas companies too. But he switched to the other company because, while they don’t do everything right, they do some things better. You inform him that he is a fascist, corporate whore lover. He argues that the more progressive company has a better chance of making the changes that might just lead to more socially responsibility. You tell him to fuck off. When they finally do it all, then he can give you a call. In the meantime all of your support and money go to the homeless guy with the great idea.
Fast forward 1 year …
You live under an overpass. You lost your home in a fire because you were burining pallets for heat. All of your savings is gone because you gave it to the homeless guy with the great idea.
His idea never got off of the ground. But thanks to your contributions, he did get himself off the street. He now works for Company B as a mailroom clerk. Even the mailroom clerks get a healthcare benefit at Co B, unlike the guys at Co A. Yes, Co A is still in business and the CEO is as rich as ever. They’ve got a great marketing department. Turns out their stock price has gone up 15% since you wrote your scathing letter.
You now stand at a busy intersection around rush hour every day hoping you’ll get a couple of dollars here and there. Some guy drives up, looks over at you, scoffs, and since you can read his lips through the window, you know he said, “Get a job you fucking loser.” That doesn’t surprise you much. But as the light turns green, it dawns on you. That was the very guy with the great idea whom you gave all your money to a year ago. The very guy who was going to change the world with his idea … and your money.
Oh well. You have your principles. That’s all that really matters.
What's interesting is that those who would be the best for our country right now are the lowest in popularity, while the same ol' supporters of the status quo are at the top. I guess everyone just wants shallow platitudes, rather than bitter medicine.
tyree @ 82:
Geez buddy, you would have a lot more credibility if you could spell.
MarcyJ @ 100:
Hillary uses Rovian subliminal mind contol tactics. She keeps saying when she is running against the Republican candidate. She is counting all of her little chickens before the eggs have been hatched. I believe that she will say or do anything to be president. Afterall, she forgave a man who made a mockery of marriage from day one and even helped make some of his paramours disappear. Do we want to have to hear more about the Clintons and their personal life? It will start all over again. I believe that she might have talked herself into believing that she invented the idea of universal healthcare. In retrospect, why did Bill make her his healthcare person? She wasn't elected to anything when he was president. Her arrogance set the idea of any healthcare changes back ten plus years. I say that we move on from the Clintons and elect someone with a new last name to the White House. Just remember, the most important poll of all is the one that shows how her negatives will hurt the party.
Purple Nurple, what is it about the primary process that you don't understand? Did you take government in high school? (or did you just not pay attention).
I'm done with this. It's like banging your head against a brick wall.
Straight Shooter @ 101:
I could care less where you spend your money... as none of those groups get my money.... as for your time, while I appreciate wanting to end the war...
If you would of listened to all or nothing noseless smartasses like my self years ago... There would of been no fucking war to begin with..
calling this place LGF land... then getting outraged by our outrage
Pfsh... GO FIST Cheney your Hannity, while you Bill Orielly, your Haggard, Goddamn Fawell, Baker, Bush, Rumsfield Rove, Gannon!!!!!!
What does she want, a cookie? The majority of this country is overwhelmingly against this war. It's about fucking time.
I agree with whatever get American out of Iraq ..
We , Iraqis and you , American .. have got enough from this unfair war
Regards
http://www.iraqisoutside.com
Iraqisoutside @ 112:
Amen brother.
The 2008 election can be simplified thus: Democrat or Republican.
You vote the party when you vote the person.
Which party do you want running the show?
redjalapeno @ 114:
Amen again.
Cameron @ 2:
C & L was one of two sites which wrote about the amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill sponsored by Lieberman, Kyle, Graham, McCain and Coleman which would basically allow Bush to attack Iran if he so chose as he did Iraq. I want to see how Hillary and others vote on this. I have a feeling that the Clintons (duo) are going to portray Iraq as the wrong and mismanaged war of Bush but Iran as a justified action. I saw Bill on Larry King the last time, and he was for troop withdrawals from Iraq because we might need them to fight elsewhere. Like Iran, for example?
MarcyJ @ 115:
That is the problem with faith... It is Black and White...and mostly blind.
And the problem with both of those choices.. are the same people own both of them.
Why you cannot see that... is pretty scary to me.
It is like saying the Hillary has all the benifits of Kucinich because she also has a D near her name... When any 3 year old can tell that those two choices will lead the country and world into PROFOUNDLY different Directions.
I want the people to run the show...
The differences between the corporate selected front runners .. is negligible.
Is this a gop blog?
Looks like one with all the hate spewed here.
What, you going to vote for Rudy? He is worse than w.
Get real, she said she will withdraw from Iraq but some will remain not playing Iraqi police.
This is leadership but you bash her.
Clinton cleaned up daddy's mess and they will clean up w's disasters.
How we forget how great this country was under competent leadership.
It will be great again. Clintons 08 to clean up bushies mess again.
redjalapeno @ 114:
Neither one. In case you haven't noticed the (Democratic majority) Congress is down to 11 % in the polls. There are two things they made a big deal about in November 2006 and January 2007 that they haven't touched. One was to address the gross inequalities in the tax structure. Obama is the only one who has touched that, and he's being ignored for the most part although CNN did call it a "Robin Hood" scheme. And the other thing was that Nancy Pelosi had two words for us: subpoena power, but I don't need to remind you about that. I predict if Hillary Clinton gets the nod, she will be announcing that she will have no litmus test for the SCOTUS. I don't think it's worthwhile voting for a party when all you'll be getting is a win by your Blue Team over the Red Team.
Juba @ 109:
You're not paying attention. It is clear that I am repelled by the hatred of those who advocate leaving the democratic party behind, not those who prefer one democrat over another. If you're (or as you would say, "your") reading--and many threads, not just this one--you'll see that there are many who think there is no difference between the parties. That is absurd. Go ahead and hate your ass off for the primary season; but hopefully you'll vote dem in the general. But anyone who is paying attention already knows that I have said that many times.
rduke @ 110:
What the fuck makes you think I was ever pro war? Everyone who disagrees with you stomping your feet and having a hissy fit, you think they were pro war and just all of a sudden changed their minds? I didn't even want us to bomb Afghanistan.
You have a very subjective view of what's right and what's wrong and what can be done to fix it. Yeah, Kucinich, I'm all for him, but this is not an ideal world we're living in. Get used to it.
rduke @ 117:
My three year old just shit his pants. Does that mean he's pro-Kucinich, or anti-Hillary?
Otay @ 41:
Dead right. And that means examining their voting record, who their bribers are and which unelected policy-making think tanks they're affiliated with.
Get behind Kucinich or Ron Paul. Party is immaterial when it comes to lies vs truth. Deny the MSM the pleasure of telling you who to vote for.
Around 10% of the current candidates are prepared to have the people be their master. The rest sold their souls decades ago.
You sorta get the impression that if Mitt Romney or someone similar switched parties and ran for President as a Democrat, there would be certain elements on this website that would support him because he has a D by his name, and would try to suppress criticism of him because he might have a good chance at beating Guiliani.
I guess if we had already gone through the primaries, then maybe there might be a point to supporting Romney. But since there is still time to choose, then perhaps it would be a good idea to try to get the word out that Romney's only marginally better than what the Republicans will toss at us, and will not only delay as long as possible in getting us out of Iraq, he may still lead us into yet another war with a country that did not attack us. And we're not basing that on a gut feeling -- we're basing that on "Mitt"'s voting record and things that he has already said.
Now is the only time we have to speak out on this. If we wait until the general election, it is too late.
rduke @ 64:
Watch it! Your are getting dangerously near the truth.
Which is that the labels 'Republican' and 'Democrat' don't mean anything anymore. It's much closer to the truth to say:
'The Money Party' vs. 'The People Party'.
SandThroughTheEyeGlass @ 79:
When caught in a knee-jerk lie, spin somebody else's alleged choice to do nothing as the only right thing to do. What was Obama's excuse for not voting? Same reason he didn't go the the AARP & Livestrong Cancer Forum events? So many excuses were made for him not voting, can't remember which one actually came out of his mouth after it was over.
Despite the Billary love fest by this site, wait & see if she really casts a meaningful vote against funding--my bet is that her guru Carville won't let her.
Straight Shooter @ 121:
Sure... my view is subjective, and yours is objective and tangible... to you.
To me you fail to really see where we are, you call what I am doing stomping my feet and having a fit...
While you don't understand my track record, all I am telling you to do is to keep listening to that voice that caused you to oppose Afghanistan to begin with and we will be closer to the same page... and the world will be that much closer to ideal.... (which is what we should be striving for ANYWAY ... RIIGHT???)
So....
No I am not supporting Hillary... She is not getting my vote, and never will ... No Corporate Candidate will...
Fascism of any flavor is naturally abhorrent to me... and I cannot and will not support it in any way shape or form...
Ever again...
Kerry was the last time.
I am not getting into line..
As my vote is my say, and I refuse to entertain and humor those with a faith that the Corporatocracy is not really real... and that their "left" wing brand is going to be different...
When they wont.
PurplePatriot @ 122:
My twin three year olds laugh at yours for defecating in his pants... Apple don't fall far huh...
You know damn full and well where I stand... as this is no where near the first time you and I have locked horns... I am PRO- Kucinich.. AND Anti Hillary...
PurplePatriot @ 120:
Bullshit, that's exactly what you've been saying on this thread, no need to backpedal now. All one need do is take a look at any of your comments on this thread. You don't want anyone criticizing your candidate, and you've been throwing a fit because nobody wants to hear it.
Here's a newsflash for you. As of now we live in a democracy and can criticize any candidate we wish. Under your logic, anyone who criticizes Hillary is going to vote for a Republican, which is bullshit.
Most liberals will hold their nose and vote for the shill in lieu of better democrat, but the primary isn't over yet my friend. And it's people like you who empower these mediocre, centrist pawns, feeding into the myth that they are somehow 'going to win anyway'. It's what I call the 'mediocrity prophesy', the democrats have been pulling since the DLC took over and started losing elections in the 90's.
It's time we took back our party from these flaccid centrist wankers and voted ourselves a winner who actually stands for progressive ideals, i.e. Dennis K.
Well if nobody is going to vote for Hillary in the primaries, then there is really no point arguing about it (if they are, I'd love to hear why one would do such a thing). If we're talking about the general election if Hillary gets through the primaries, then I'm not going to bother commenting on it anymore I don't see why any else should either. After the primaries we will all have a better idea of the situation and what all our options are. Right now I have no idea who will win the Republican primary or what third party candidates will be in play, and if we're fortunate enough that Hillary doesn't make it through the primaries this will all be a moot point anyway.
I have been voting Dem my entire life and am VERY disapointed in the current group of chicken shit democrats in Congress right now. I truly believe each of them would line up on their knees to blow George if they were offered a chance. So, just fuck off if you think people should vote dem because they are "better". I plan to vote indy, IF AT ALL, in the next general election. I vote dem and get Amy Klobuchar, what a fucking joke she is. Obama and Clinton are pieces of shit. The dems have rolled over and spread their cheeks for Bush since the last election and love it......
Its what she did not say that scares me. She refuses to say I will pull all troops out of Iraq. So in other words she plans a permanent presence there.
andrew @ 127:
Carville is another good reason to totally ignore her...
She too late to the anti-war party. She didn't lead anyone into this position. She's following the majority of votes. BFD. I'd vote Republican before giving her a vote.
Straight Shooter @ 121:
What the fuck makes you think I was ever pro war?
I missed this line...
But, where the fuck do I give you the impression that I think you were ever pro war???
How do you think that I think that??
rduke @ 134:
Got that right. The moment, THE MOMENT, should she become the nominee it will be like listening to 1994-1998 all over again. I dont think I could stand it. Begala. The odious Anne Lewis. Carville. Then the opponents. Hannity. Terry Whatever of Human Events with that hard to take voice. All the Marks (Marcs) and Larrys and Georges on both sides.
Because it will be nothing but a rehash of Bill Clinton and his policies. A fucking mess.
Save us from that disaster. She must be feeling her oats from acing her Fox News appearance, calculated to make the red meat states want Hill as a dem candidate.
A quarter of a century with either a Bush or Clinton in office? No. No. No, this is wrong.
Juba @ 130:
Good luck. But there isn't enough Viagra in the world to get Kucinich past the primary season. He won't even make it past super tuesday. But I'll tell you what. I'll vote for Kucinich in the primary ... for real. Despite your insistence, I do not have a candidate (I probably prefer Edwards). But for you, I'll vote for Kucinich. And if he wins the nomination, I'll buy you a steak house. I'd love to see someone new and progressive storm D.C. with a shitload of new and progressive congressmen. I'd also like to see Jessica Alba in my bed tomorrow morning. Each has the same chance of happening. But I'm still going to vote Kucinich.
slippytoad @ 78:
Why would the vote to authorize military force, if necessary, in order to put international inspectors on the ground in Iraq only be viable if it was proven Iraq had a direct connection to the attack on 9/11?
Not every vote is a good idea only if it is connected to 9/11. Did you condemn Congress for voting to raise the minimum wage because it isn't related to the attack on 9/11?
Voting to authorize military force against Iraq if they failed a WMD inspection process would have been a good idea even if 9/11 had never happened.
Bush the Liar @ 133:
She said elsewhere that her military advisers told her the Iraq occupation would last another decade. She is planning on doing nothing.
Cut the funding maybe. But she is not going to bat for anything. This woman is not the sharpest knife in the drawer. She doesn't have Obama's intellectual acuity. She doesn't have Richardson's innate grasp of geopolitical hijinks and diplomacy. Nor does she have Dodd's settled sense of right and wrong. She is merely ambitious. That's it.
Republicans still control the Senate as there are enough of them to block Democratic attempts to change direction in Iraq. That the public in general does not see this speaks volumes. Of course, this is the same public that gave Bush not one but two terms.
There is a fair amount of vitriol being spewed here unnecessarily. I would agree that we should all wait until after the primaries but I for one can this: NO matter who wins the Democratic nod I am voting for them. Failure to do so will most likely leave the same barbarians in charge. It just cannot get any simpler than that.
Perhaps we should leave the second-guessing and "if so and so is elected then this is gonna happen" aside, vote for a change, and see what results. IF then you have reason to spew then by all means spew.
Change WILL NOT occur with the Republican party holding the reins. The Democratic party is malleable enough to effect change from within and are certainly more responsive to the populace. I believe that having the Democrats in charge gives all of us a better chance at effecting a third party that can begin to break down the empire that is the United States government. Just looking at the candidates for each party should be proof of this.
If I am proved wrong on this then bash me every way you see fit but while you're at it do something to effect the changes you desire.
It's Me @ 139:
I admire the fact that you're trying. But trying to reason with this crowd on this topic is like talking about evolution at an Alabama school board meeting.
It's Me @ 11:
This doesn't make any sense.
Too bad Ann Richards died. She is a woman I'd have loved to see in the Oval Office. Someone with some spunk and vision.
"Hillary Clinton says she’ll vote against funding the Iraq war!" Only if it is dead certain the war will be funded without her vote. She's a pandering whore. And when I say whore, I mean that she's sold her vote and her soul over and over again to megacorporates--big pharma and credit companies in a big, BIG way, for example. Also the CEO of InfoUSA has been acting as sugardaddy to both Clintons for quite awhile now. She wants to be president so bad she'll say any goddamn thing, but she's still Dick Cheney with tits.
Big news. Hillary is voting with the national polls. It will be interesting how much effort she puts into persuading her Democrat and Republican colleagues to oppose more funding for the war. Will she be vocal and criticize publicly those who vote for Iraq funding. Or will she simply say it's a matter of individual conscience? Hillary rides the fence on Iraq and, if she intends to be viewed as a leader and has true convictions about the need to change policy, then SHE SHOULD LEAD in the Senate and pressure the House.
hareli Says:
And Molly Ivins could have been vice president. Now THAT would have been an administration what was an administration!
hareli @ 143:
you got to remember its him!
If I follow a position once >85% of the people agree with that position (and it's too late to correct the mistakes of the past position), can I too become president? Are presidents little more than sheep these days? Better yet, let us just make a computer president. A computer that collects all poll information and then waits until 85% of the population takes a position. And we can pay it zilch.
Login or Register to post comments.