Hillary Clinton Defends her 2002 Iraq War Vote -- through Attack
Above is a brief segment from Senator Hillary Clinton's vote for the Iraq War resolution. The complete speech can be seen in its entirety here (part 1) and here (part 2).
This morning on Meet the Press sparks flew as Russert brought up Senator Clinton's vote yet again. Transcript is here.
Download | play 
Download | play
Tim Russert contrasts what she said at the time with what Barack Obama said in 2002 (then an Illinois state senator):
"I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors. ... I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that" "invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale" "without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars."
RUSSERT: Who had the better judgment at that time?
Senator Clinton briefly outlined why she voted as she did, that her vote was not one for preemptive war but for further UN weapons inspections, and that she had President Bush's personal assurances that all avenues would be taken to prevent war, war as an option only of last resort.
Then a curious thing takes place. Rather than debate Senator Obama's judgment with her own, there is a long, rather tortured argument over the consistency of Obama's statements on the Iraq War, voting patterns over funding, and even questions about his political motivations. It was all rather perplexing to watch, seemingly taken from the Karl Rove playbook of attacking your opponent's strength.
Obama shot back:
I have to point out that instead of telling the American people about her positive vision for America, Senator Clinton spent an hour talking about me and my record in a way that was flat out wrong. She suggested that I didn't clearly and unambiguously oppose the war in Iraq when it is absolutely clear and anyone who has followed this knows that I did. I stood up against the war when she was voting for it, at a time when she didn't read the intelligence reports or give diplomacy a chance. ...I have to say that she started this campaign saying that she wanted to make history and lately she has been spending a lot of time rewriting it. I know that in Washington it is acceptable to say or do anything it takes to get elected but I really don't think that is the kind of politics that is good for our party and I don't think it is good for our country and I think that the American people will reject it in this election.
Since New Hampshire this election seems to have entered a new, decidedly more personal phase. One which incidentally does not include John Edwards as he was barely mentioned, either by Mrs Clinton or by Russert.
Is Karl Rove giving Hillary lessons in how to re-state and re-write history? She should do well following in Bush's footsteps..
I'll stick with John Edwards and let these celebrity candidates duke it out.
Sounds to me like she is conceding Obama's judgment was better on that point, BUT it wasn't her fault. That mean ol' Bush's fault for misleading her, darn it!
Obama can bluster all he wants.
He's still feeding off his speech in 2002.
Since then where has he been?
Campaigning for Lieberman
Voting for funding the war.
No plans for immediate withdrawal of troops.
When did he ever take the Senate floor and speak out against the war?
Never.
He is full of himself and full of hot air.
But Obama was FOR FUNDING THE WAR, even voted for MORE FUNDING - TWICE!!!
Stop the Obama-is-a-saint bias!
[deleted - over the top]
Jo @ 2:
Edwards is the best choice, hands down. I'm hoping that one of the two media darlings brings him in as VP and lets him be their Dick.
Clinton is full of shit.
"Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind...
War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector
enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today." -- John F. Kennedy.
Russert was asking her about it, that's why she spent time talking about it...
Anyway I like all the democratic candidates. All of them are miles ahead of any of the republicans.
Obama's big statement: "I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars."
I've got news for him. All wars are dumb.
And if the war in Iraq is especially dumb, why in God's name does he keep voting to fund the damn thing
instead of proposing legislation to get our troops out of there?
Filthy Harry @ 3:
The candidate that steps up and takes personal responsiblity...and not some ham handed excuse...will have my vote.
I believe Obama said he was wrong...without the but...but...but.
Not that I'd vote for him, but he's been somewhat more honest than Hillary.
You can't run from your record....you also should not apologize for it. Hillary was and is better off saying...yes I voted for the war...and leave off the but but buts.
I don't think it's a good idea to run for election on the notion that you were fooled by GW Bush.
Hillary and Obama, ...both war pigs
they both voted for the patriot act!
pull the troops out now!
no more war for oil, the battle we need to fight is on our own soil.
Geraldo @ 7:
Edwards is running the perfect campaign. By the time the other two are done bludgeoning one another, he will have secured enough votes to take the nomination at the convention.
WellSpring @ 4:
But you see, it is perplexing and Rovian to highlight these aspects of Obama that the rest of the news media treats with kid gloves. Furthermore, Hillary Clinton's rationale for her voting record makes sense entirely, as does the hard line she drew when speaking to the President. He betrayed the nation, or has that been forgotten?
One has to wonder why "Crooks & Liars" felt it necessary to make two posts about this interview, both of which offer no criticism of what Obama says, but rather they paint a negative image of Clinton for asking questions about the inconsistencies in the man's record. Good times.
Seriously, guys - two posts about the same damn thing? We get it. You don't like Clinton.
Scarce, this layout is beautifully done. Thank you for the attention given to the contrasting positions of Obama and Hillary at the beginning of the Iraq War, regarding the Iraq War. Compilations of this the type is needed by dolts like me for a sound decision next November.
Liberal AND Proud @ 12:
How can you call yourself "Liberal AND Proud" when you repeat misleading talking-points about how Hillary Clinton voted for war when that's not what the bill was actually about?
Liberal AND Proud @ 14:
Yes.
Very clever response from Obama –
I suppose the right thing for Hillary to have done was to ask Russert to excuse himself, so that she could devote the hour of his show to what she wanted to talk about. Okay, I guess that wouldn’t have worked. So, I guess she should not have attempted to answer Russert’s questions, but instead answered the questions she wanted him to ask. No, wait – then she would have been accused of being afraid to answer Russert – and all Russert wanted to talk about was Obama.
Now that we know that Hillary couldn’t have the whole hour to herself, and that she chose to answer Russert’s question, what about Obama’s stance on the war? What about his record?
She acknowledged – and has always acknowledged – that Obama was opposed to the war in 2002, and points out the speech he gave then. But, is she wrong that he did say that he didn’t know how he would have voted if he had been in the Senate then? Did he not say that he didn’t see much difference in his views and Bush’s? Did he not vote for funding when he came to the Senate? Is she wrong that he didn’t give a Senate speech on Iraq until 18 months into his term in the Senate? Is she wrong that he voted to renew the Patriot Act?
So, maybe Senator Obama would like to explain to us what exactly Clinton said that distorted his views and his record – or maybe not.
Yes, very clever of Senator Obama.
How come I don't see you guys going after Obama on his voting record? You are getting on the same level as tweety.
Its pretty obvious Rove & the Clinton's are working together. Duh! (c) Jay-Z
The HRC-bashing going on in progressive blogs can do no good and comparing HRC to Rove is distasteful and disheartening. All of this feeds into the rightwing disinformation machine and I suspect some of it comes from there) and can only help to further fracture the already tenuous Dem Party unity. To win in November, we must be united.
i am getting soooo sick of the clintons...
can i give them a donation to STFU?
She could put this shit to bed with about three sentences. She could say she should not have voted for the war and that she has learned a great deal from her mistake, one that she will never make again.
Once she said that, that part of it would be over. Now about not reading the report. Yesterday she talked about all the people she conferred with before she voted, but the biting part is she herself never bothered to read something that important. You can't wash that away no matter how much you talk about it. If it was worth her precious time to get all that information from others, wouldn't you think she would want to know exactly what she were talking about?
WellSpring @ 4:
DITTO!!
Pin Saddam down?
Hillary is sooooooo full of shit.
"“I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors." - Barack Obama, Oct. 2002
And just exactly how did he "know" that since there hadn't been any inspectors in Iraq since 1998?
The Congressional authorization to use military force in Iraq IF Iraq failed the inspection process was OBVIOUSLY NOT a vote for war or a declaration of war and the president and everyone in Congress who signed it knew it. If it had been, why would we have waited 5 months for the enemy to tool up their presumed Weapons of Mass Destruction before we struck?
Hillary is right. Her vote as well as everyone else's was a vote to enforce inspections and to invade only IF Iraq failed the inspection process and was shown to provide a threat to our national security or that of its neighbors, which the inspections were proving was not the case weeks before Bush over-stepped his Congressional authorization and invaded anyway.
How can anyone watch the way Tim Russert truncated the one sentence Bill Clinton used the words "fairy tale" without including one word of the context leading up to it in that clip and the way he cut off Hillary when she tried to address that and not realize how much lying is done by the media in order to twist the facts and attack the Clintons and undermine the Democratic Party's chances of putting this country back on the right track?
Anyone who believed GW's bullshit about not invading Iraq unless all other avenues were exhausted is not qualified to be president. The key words in the resolution were "use of force" to enforce the resolution. She should have known what that implied. Or she knew but agreed with the plan. Either way, it disqualifies her. Like Cheney and Rumsfeld, she conveniently ignored any evidence that contradicted the false accusations being leveled at the regime of Saddam Hussein.
We want a leader, not a follower.
'Eight years of experience', then:
voted for military intervention in Iraq,
apparently oblivious that her vote just gave
bush a green light to do what he wanted
without asking congress again.
'4 years of experience', later:
She voted for kyle/lieberman...
and she'd do it again
b
pissed off patricia @ 24:
Correction to the last sentence.
If it was worth her precious time to get all that information from others, wouldn't you think she would want to know exactly what she was talking about?
nyguy @ 20:
It's worse than that, go to the top of this page, look to the right of your screen.
WHO HAS A PAID ADVERTISEMENT???
OBAMA.
Crooks and Liars, if you don't provide more balanced reporting, it's called FASCISM.
The stupidest thing Hillary can do is to get drawn into a discussion about race. No matter what, she loses on it. Most people on the left are looking at the candidates' positions not their skin or genitals. To let the media draw them into discussing race or gender is to play right into the GOP playbook. How dumb can you be to bring up MLK and suggest he isn't the hero he's portrayed to be?
Obama is right about one thing. Hillary could have steered that hour with Timmey to talking about her vision for the future and her nuts-and-bolts plans for getting us there. Instead, ol' Pumpkinhead got her into a regressive discussion about race.
The media are full of idiots. The candidates don't have to play with them.
Hillary and her surrogates should attack only one thing on Obama -- his experience or lack thereof. Then she should talk about her vision and her ability.
i don't care how the hillary handlers and spinners try to cover her past mistakes, ANYONE who voted for the iraq war is complicit in the ongoing crime.
hillary's, and everyone else, that claims that they believed and trusted the evidence are fools--or, at least, triangulating machiavellians.
Just goes to show... Edwards is the best option. I really wish he'd come from behind as the Hillary/Obama camps destroy each other.
It also shows Hilary is power-hungry, to the point of say-or-do whatever it takes to win. Ethics be damned.
Fox Conscience @ 21:
Rove's wet dream is an Obama candidacy.
They'll mop up the floor with him.
He hasn't anything - has no record.
The more maliciously Rove talks against Obama, the more sympathy he generates for Obama and the more hostility he generates toward Hillary Clinton.
Statement from Senator Clinton (Perhaps that is why the press conference was called so hastily by Obama.)
"Over this past week, there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth - much of which I know does not reflect what is in our hearts.
"And at this moment, I believe we must seek common ground.
"Our party and our nation is bigger than this. Our party has been on the front line of every civil rights movement, women's rights movement, workers' rights movement, and other movements for justice in America.
"We differ on a lot of things. And it is critical to have the right kind of discussion on where we stand. But when it comes to civil rights and our commitment to diversity, when it comes to our heroes - President John F. Kennedy and Dr. King " Senator Obama and I are on the same side.
"And in that spirit, let's come together, because I want more than anything else to ensure that our family stays together on the front lines of the struggle to expand rights for all Americans."
tyree @ 357:
Have at it!
CappuccettoRosso @ 306:
You ignored my question: Given his past record in the Senate, his unimpressive performance in the 2004 debate and campaign, and his lack of public service, compared to Obama's, on what basis should I believe that he means what he says now?
Try again.
mudshark @ 361:
Oh, muddy...You must be Paul McCartney's grandfather- a real mixer you are.
I can tell because you're so clean. ;)
And thanks, tyree! I always look forward to your posts, too. :)
Andy K @ 363:
LOL!
L.A. Confidential @ 360:
Said the Barry Goldwater supporting Hillary who just now realizes she has found black people who may just actually believe her because they don't have web access available to instantly debunk her myths and revisionistic tendencies.
Deep down, Clinton knows Obama was right back then, and has been all along, when Clinton was wrong. The only way Clinton can make that approval vote sound justified is to borrow from Karl Rove's playbook and try to re-write history. This kind of politics won't fly in this election, and Barack knows it. It's why he'll win the nomination, and the presidency in November.
Eris23 @ 337:
Either you knew nothing of Watergate or are purposely spinning the same MSM crap corporate sellouts of the Constitution think will pander to the sub 75 IQ crowd.
There were not enoughts voted to convict Nixon until AFTER the hearings commented. Thats a fact jack. Nixon was explicitly told after the dirt was aired in public from his closest allies in the Senate that the tide turned. That is also a fact jack.
Let the laundry air, lets see who all knew about illegal wire taps and did nothing. Let see who had motive to support the Patriot Act, a direct violation of the 4th Amendent which was written MONTHs before 9/11. Let see who refuses to reign in the powers of the Unitary Exceutive.
Impeachment means far more than removing the Bush/Cheney cabal - it means removal of their most staunchest supporters as well. Bye Bye DLC!!!
kravitz @ 365:
Nobody cares about the war vote. It couldn't have been stopped at the time. The Bush administration and its backers were too powerful.
What matters is what we do now. And as far a I can see beyond the begining of immeidate troop draw downs upon taking office, and then forcing an honest assessment out of newly run Pentagon, there are no good options.
To have a plan now is foolishness because there is no honest information about what is happening over there, at all.
What matters is what they will do domestically, and Obama is coming out way to the right of Clinton on all of his proposals.
Russert as usual is a day late and a dollar short of what really matters.
fiver @ 209:
I'd call you clever for managing to prattle on without responding to anything I have said, except that your ad-hominem strategy is transparent and immature. Telling everyone to "remember" that they're "all idiots?" Classy.
What you said about Hillary Clinton voting for war is false. Pantomime all you want, but that will remain the case for the rest of recorded history.
Read this, fer Chrissakes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Here's a fun tidbit:
Notice how that undermines your simplistic, disengenuous argument that Hillary Clinton 'voted for war?' She voted for war under the conditions that the U.N. Security Council had approved said military operation. It also required for the UN inspectors to have either found weapons of mass destruction, or to have been deterred through the obstruction created by Saddam Hussein's government. It's all in the article.
Finally, like it or not, false intelligence was created to mislead all members of government, as well as the American populace. I don't expect people to dismiss these sorts of things, because doing so means that items like "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within the United States" are pushed aside as heresy and nonsense. You can't have it both ways.
CappuccettoRosso @ 319:
That's a lie, and you know it. Produce your proof.
As for dual citizenship, quite a few Americans have such.
Hillary is a fool. If she had any spine in 2002 she would have this nomination locked up long ago.
Liberal AND Proud @ 14:
I met Edwards, Obama and Clinton and Edwards is the worst of them all. He's so incredibly fake. That fake smile, false empathy, shaking hands like a typical politican and not listening to darn word I had to say. Obama is just moonlight and gondalas. I don't want a rookie running the country....it's not an OJT kinda job. He listened but didn't ask questions or relate in any way. Clinton....was the best. she listened, asked questions and showed concern. She's got more experience than the other two combined and has the brains to run the country effectively from day one.
Edwards and Obama are just plain dumb choices for the top job - Obama would be a great VP but he's not ready for the POTUS job.
One thing I really HATE about Edwards is he claims to be of middle class. The former-senator lives in a 30,000 square foot house! Never mind the $400 haircut. And he's a former one term senator. If he wanted to "change" things and want to serve the country he would have stayed a senator or something and fight for the millions who can't fight. This is the worst thing - he sued doctors to make a living. D-O-C-T-O-R-S! People who save people's lives for a living. They have more honor and brains than Edwards could ever dream of, and he sued them for millions to buy that big old house and the haircut and now the campaign for the Presidency. Anyway, the arsehole will never get my vote. I didn't like him in '04 as the VP candidate and I certainly do not like him now.
sHillary - the name should tell you if I like her
no more bushs, no more Clintons. Need real change with a true Democrat.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand: No more corporate whores. No more "blue dogs". No more DLCers. No more DINOs please!
Boot @ 338:
Sure thing. Aside from working for the Nixon campaign, HC also was on the team working on Nixon's impeachment.
Your claim that she is only a factor because of her marriage is untrue. As I pointed out, she has been involved in politics her whole life. A career in politics was not unlikely. That she so quickly became one of the top corporate lawyers in the country at Rose shows her intelligence, and her melding those talents with Bill Clinton while never becoming a 'Laura Bush' appendage is quite clear from the history.
Your comment and theory is sexist. You and others think that she only exists because of him. I'm not her biggest fan, but I have a real antipathy for sexist lies. She paid a lot of dues for some respect, and I think you owe her at least the respect of not trying to minimize her PERSONAL accomplishments.
@OxfordUni @ 373:
A house he bought with his own earnings from his successful career. As for being from the middle class, he was -- barely:
Boot @ 338:
Wow, I'm offended by your statement that every poli sci major is involved like that. WRONG! I know lots of poli sci students and lots of other majors who don't even vote, never been campaigning and have not joined college repubs or dems. I have been President of Young Democrats at my university, been involved in local, state and national campaigns (all same as Hillary), involved in Student Government ( was a Senator and I'm running for President this year), write letters to elected officials, met with elected officials in meetings as well as political events, and I could go on and on. My point - don't diss her credentials. She was involved more than the normal student and far more experienced than others, believe me. Oh, while a lawyer, she was head of a special committee and was appointed by President Carter. Right - out - of - law - school.
Anyway, if you think that 75% of college students are involved, go to a local university now and get a reality check. If they were involved as you claim they are then the youth voter turnout would be HUGE!
Cheers,
J
@OxfordUni @ 373:
Paul in LA already shot down your argument that Edwards isn't from the middle class, now it's my turn.
Take a gander at some of those cases Edwards argued here.
And, what, are doctors made perfect? Overprescribing drugs that cause brain damage? Causing cereberal palsy? Jesus, would you defend Ford for how they handled the exploding Pintos back in the '70's?
Paul in LA @ 376:
Yeah, suing doctors. So incredibly honorable. Lots of people were successful at what they do and make a good living but sometimes the honor of it is just shoved aside. I can tell you loads of stories about criminals who have great houses they paid with they earnings from a successful career. Anyway, Next time you go to a emergency room or a doctor tell them you like Edwards and see how they treat you.
Middle class - he is not in the middle class when he's living in multi million dollar home. Sure his roots might be (and I knew this before your fact check) but that doesn't change the fact that he's living in the lap of luxury from his "stolen" money from Doctors.
@OxfordUni @ 379:
So I gather that by your answer here, you believe that either:
A) There are no negligent doctors, or
B) If a doctor harms someone through negligence, the injured party should have no recourse.
What say you Rhodes scholar? Which one is it, Oxford dude? A or B?
Andy K @ 378:
Doctors make mistakes like all of us and if you haven't noticed there is not a cure all pill. The human body is complex and every single body is different. Doctors cannot make a perfect diagnosis or a perfect prescription every time. They go to school far longer than any other occupation and get the most negative reactions for it. Why do you think medical costs are so high? It's because of malpractice insurance and the vicious lawyers like Edwards who prey upon a single misjudgment. If we treated every other industry like we do doctors, god, you wouldn't be able to pay for anything.
I wasn't alive back then and I'm glad I wasn't. Lord have mercy, they didn't have the same medical back then like they do now. I wouldn't be alive right now if I lived back in the 70s! Anyway, I don't know about Pintos.
miss_kitty @ 380:
Well, let's get a couple of things straight,
A) not a Rhodes scholar
B) not a dude
C) you couldn't get into Oxford even with the brain of the best doctor
D) there are not enough choices in your inadequate list to even make a decision.
E) go take the LSAT or take a course in Logic because clearly you have none with the reasoning you have displayed.
Cheers mate!
@OxfordUni @ 379:
Doctors who commit malpractice are the ones who aren't honorable.
Kerry Reid @ 362:
I agree. Edwards is unimpressive.
OxfordUni @ 379 "Anyway, Next time you go to a emergency room or a doctor tell them you like Edwards and see how they treat you."
That's hilarious. Now honorable doctors are supposed to 'treat' patients differently over their political views?
"Middle class - he is not in the middle class when he's living in multi million dollar home. Sure his roots might be (and I knew this before your fact check) but that doesn't change the fact that he's living in the lap of luxury from his "stolen" money from Doctors."
You will have to produce the statement where he claims to be currently in the middle class. As for 'stolen' money, apparently you don't think much of the legal profession or the honor of courts.
Funny how you slander Edwards with nonsense while claiming to be a Democrat.
Shawnmeat @ 370:
Of course you want to rip your eyes out, because no matter how hard you try, you simply cannot wish away the C&L videoclip where Hillary LIES to the American people about WMD, Al-Qaeda-Saddam connection, reconstituted Nukes. When it comes to fanning the flames of war against Muslims and Arabs, Hillary is pretty much Dick Cheney in a skirt. If you have the stomach for it, listen to her words again, she's channeling Rumsfeld, Bush, Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol. With that on their conscience, it's perfectly natural Hillarytards would recoil in horror and want to rip out their own eyes.
Paul in LA @ 383:
Agreed, not all doctors are honorable.
PEACE ATTACK @ 386:
You make a lot of fiery assertions, with very little evidence. That HC voted for Kyl-Lieberman and voted for the IR are not sufficient evidence to slander her as "Dick Cheney in a skirt," aside from the fact that she famously doesn't wear skirts.
You're demonizing her outrageously, without any real evidence other than two votes during a coup and while running as the first woman in history to have a chance at being President, during a time of unprecedented media conspiracy to defraud our democratic process.
@OxfordUni @ 387:
And when taken to court, and this is exposed, the trial lawyer who proved that makes money. What exactly is your problem with that?
Paul in LA @ 385:
hmmmm, well. My voter id for FL says "democrat" thus I must be a democrat.
Paul in LA @ 389:
I know a lot of doctors that were innocent.
Plenty of DINOs in the world.
In this 2008 season, I feel the candidates who understand and truly believe and want a better life for everyone in this country are limited to only a few.
Barack Obama. Because he wants to end the logjam, try new ideas with good people, and is rather aware coming down to a decision deserves a sound explanation. Rather than a backtrack from a spouse. Besides, if you can't excite, you can't create. A yes.
John Edwards. I supported him in his earlier run. Too bad he lost to the hair guy and had to take the coach seat. All those running are feelthy rich with feelthy questionable friends. Though not all of them can understand a difficult decision is having to choose between the light bill or the mortgage. Rather than Neiman-Marcus or Nordstrum. Also a yes.
Who is rather off the list?
A spouse of an ex-president who is showing us that she may indeed be more about the horse race than about the country's business.
An ex-mayor who really was too much in shock on a certain day to panic. And because he didn't reveal his panic, people who were panicking erroneously thought him courageous.
A war veteran who appears moderate until the wind blows him over and off the fence.
A used car salesman's son who was an ex-govenor of a state that finally woke itself back up to its democratic legacy.
An aw-shucks I can't believe it's happening to me some people wait a lifetime preacher who is too charming to question very harshly for some rather bizarre views.
To name a few.
So Mr. Obama or Mr. Edwards, let's get this ship in the correct direction. Good luck to both of you.
@OxfordUni @ 382:
Right, mate. Ta for the assessment based on one post. You didn't answer. BTW I knew you weren't a Rhodes Scholar. How? With my Cartesian logic, I figured you would have CALLED yourself 'Rhodes Scholar' since you are bragging about your location with your handle. For all I know, you could be scrubbing the loos @OxfordUni. And judging by your inability to answer my question, I am wondering if that isn't the case.
Anyway, back to the question. There are no negligent doctors? Or parties injured by negligence should have no recourse?
Here are some more questions. Is it a 'mistake' for a doctor to leave during a spinal surgery to cash his paycheck? Or is it 'negligent?' It's a real case, is why I bring it up.
If a 70 year old woman goes to her doctor several times complaining of classic bowel cancer symptoms, and he does not order the test (a colonoscopy, FYI) to determine whether or not she has colon cancer, and as a result of his lack of action she loses her large intestine to bowel cancer-did he make a mistake or was he neglectful? Another real case.
And please-are you incapable of dismissing my choices with well thought out logical choices? Or is ad hominem your usual modus operandi for getting out of the tough stuff, basically when you've crapped and fallen back in it? Maybe you could take a course in manners there. Or are you majoring in smart-arsing on the internet? You're not very good at it now, are you?
@OxfordUni @ 391:
See any 'honorable' doctors among those he sued?
Shawnmeat @ 17:
Ummm..Hillary thinks it would be ok if the war went on for a few years ....I think she said 2013 or so is when she would consider withdrawing...if the war is going any better by then....(yeah right)
thats why she is doing so well right now...thats why all the war pigs get lots of tv coverage.
rain @ 25:
Well said, if only the pundits would be honest for a second. This is ike reading something coming out of O'Reilly or Hannity.
SM @ 31:
fascism? easy there...
We're in Iraq because of a big mistake. Hillary is right -- there is a right way and a wrong way to get out. There is a responsible and an irresponsible way to get out. But we must start getting out in the right way -- right away.
My above comment should NOT be construed that I support Obama.
OK, I don't usually post but I have got to say something. Every time I listen to progressive radio and the host says something "mildly" critical of Clinton the host is bombarded with calls from Clinton supporters. I ask myself one thing: have you seen her voting record? Patriot act "twice" on and on. Show me the difference between her votes and holy Joes?
Shawnmeat @ 17:
The bill granted the President the authority to conduct the Iraqi operation. We can play semantic games all day. That's what it was, and everyone in the Congress that voted for it knew what it was.
They voted for it because they were cowed by Karl Rove and the right wing that they would be declared cowards in the war on terror.
Hillary's re-writing of history is misleading, just as it is with GWB.
My aversion to Hillary is not due to gender, her personality or anything other than politics. She is the politics and the candidate of the status quo. She talks healthcare, etc. but the bottom line is...she will defer on the side of the military industrial complex and major corporations, just as GWBush has, and use the excuse of "no money in the budget" as justification. She won't tax the rich, or the corporations, she won't end the war. Nope. She's totally transparent, as is the entire DLC.
If you want to be "Republican-lite", then vote for her. If you want REAL change...there are other choices.
Liberal AND Proud @ 14:
if edwards would take the VP spot on Obama's ticket, that would be excellent, i agree.
i don't sense that these two (obama and clinton) are duking it out, but rather clinton is shadow boxing to the point of absurdity and exhaustion.....
obama hasn't yet joined the mudslinging porkers.....but give it time, perhaps he will..
...and if the clinton campaign doesn't get out of the mud soon, in a few weeks, nobody will recognize her save the the lunatic right, as she will have become the loony cartoon villain they'd always purported her to be.
"voted for the war"...straight out of 2004 republican talking points.
Stop echoing the media's narrative.
I can't believe that people actually believe the claptrap coming out of Hillary Bush's mouth. There isn't a politician in Washington, that did not know that war was exactly what Bush's little resolutions were about. Not ONE. They knew. To say otherwise is lying. Hillary is repeatedly asked about HER record. Not Bill's, not Obama's, but HERS. And how does she reply? Like Bush does. "Well, so and so............" The woman stands for NOTHING. She is exactly what everyone has been saying. Bush-lite.
debaser71 @ 44:
she voted against the levin ammendment, which was the only way to ensure that bush wouldn't abuse the authorization for use of military force.....she voted for the war.....
America wants change! We want to be able to speak out and voice our opinions!
So Shut TF up Bill!
Hillarious
Paul in LA @ 395:
I already read that. that doesn't explain that there are hundreds of doctors that he has sued and you are telling me that all of them are dirty?
I wonder if the Obama campaign has distributed any flyers stating that Hillary was a “Goldwater Girl” in the 1964 election. Goldwater challenged Lyndon Baines Johnson and Hillary campaigned for him in Chicago. Goldwater opposed both the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Hillary supported not the man who allied himself with Martin Luther King, Jr., but with the guy who opposed both King and Johnson. I do not know who will get my vote on the Democratic side yet, but, I just wanted to point this fact out that Hillary supported Goldwater in 1964. I am not sure if this has been pointed out in the media.
I wonder why nobody has brought this factoid up yet?
@OxfordUni @ 396:
You are the one slandering him -- the burden of proof is on you.
So far you have accused him of saying he was currently living in the middle class -- which you have no evidence for, because it's ridiculous. You even threw in the haircuts. And you have accused him of falsely suing honorable doctors -- which is a CRIME -- yet you have no names, no evidence.
Mainly, you don't like Edwards. That's your prerogative. Why is anybody's guess, since you have no argument, just bias.
Mr. XXXX @ 397:
I quoted the wikipedia section on that, above (#239), including the part you left out about WHY she was so conservative (her upbringing) versus WHY she worked for Eugene McCarthy's campaign and did legal research for the Congress for Nixon's impeachment, etc.
miss_kitty @ 394:
Wow. No I wouldn't call myself a Rhodes Scholar because Rhodes Scholars are really low profile people (believe me, I know some of them). I am studying at Oxford Uni, studying History and Politics (currently taking a course on Terrorism and the Second World War) at a little known PPH called Greyfriars Hall on Iffley Road just off High Street in City Centre. I live in Summertown, to the North of City Centre. You want my address because the neighborhood I reside in is not a place janitors can afford.
This is the first time I'm arguing on the internet. My brother told me it was retarded trying to argue on the internet and a waste of time (I can see what he means now).
If you couldn't understand my subtle meaning clearly you aren't very good at reading between the lines. I was poking fun at the lack of more choices. The third choice should have been "Not all doctors are honorable and some are negligent"
Answer choice is clearly ridiculous because facts show that there are negligent doctors out there. Answer B is not at all right either because it is 100% an opinion. What makes it an opinion and not a valid, logical answer - you used the word "should" instead of an active verb.
Mrbill123 @ 367:
Either you knew nothing of Watergate or are purposely spinning the same MSM crap corporate sellouts of the Constitution think will pander to the sub 75 IQ crowd.
Nope. I recognize that, for whatever reason, it was more offensive that a President order an illegal break-in than an illegal war. I am sorry that you are incapable of recognizing the same. :)
@OxfordUni @ 400:
Hardly. Don't come to argue if you have no facts.
And don't listen to your brother -- if he thinks that using the most exciting information-exchange technology in history is 'retarded' then he must have a REALLY good AM radio that he gets his info from.
Paul in LA @ 398:
Damn right I'm a biased son of bitch! I used to like Edwards but looking closer at him and listening to people who KNOW him (I am not saying names because of confidence issues) and having met him myself I have concluded the man does not deserve the white house nor to bee called the leader of my country. I'd pick a republican over him if he were the nominee and will campaign hard against him. Are you going to sue me for slander? I could find the proof with enough time and energy. Believe me, don't accuse someone of slander (which is very hard to prove) if you yourself have not found contradicting evidence of my statements.
@OxfordUni @ 400:
Whereas run of the mill students are not low profile, but braggarts. Gotcha.
Yes when people with your skills, or lack thereof, show up the tone does take a dive. Conversations devolve.
Actually you missed all my fine subtle sarkiness in the first AND second post Here's a gimmee: 'Rhodes scholar.' Your subtlety was clumsily executed, as in 'not subtle at all.' Take the law school admission test or a logic course? Huh? :roll:
I gotta go. Corrie's on.
@OxfordUni @ 403:
See? DINO.
You still have not said what Edwards could have possibly said or done in your brief moment with him to make you such an enemy. Nor have you contextualized your choices.
If you would REALLY vote for any of these R motherfkers, then you should change parties and quit masquerading as a Democrat on your first visit to Crooks & Liars, which is a website mostly devoted to why you SHOULDN'T vote for Republicans, who are almost uniformly liars, thieves, and criminals.
Name the R who you would vote for over Edwards. I'm just curious. Is it 9iu11iani and you hate Muslims? Or are you in Oxford doing your Mormon missionary service, and neglected to mention that? Are you one of (H)uckabee's Cross-hauling Heroes? Or is it a fetish for the ship-on-the-bottle cologne (and faint whiff of Velveeta) of Fred Thompson, Wonder Poodle.
Or maybe it's L Ron Paul, the Enemy of All Pennies?
What exactly are you on about? C'mon, you can tell us.
Shawnmeat @ 370:
Actual recorded history:
Statement by the President
Today I have signed into law H.J. Res. 114, a resolution "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." . . . The debate over this resolution in the Congress was in the finest traditions of American democracy. There is no social or political force greater than a free people united in a common and compelling objective. It is for that reason that I sought an additional resolution of support from the Congress to use force against Iraq, should force become necessary.
-- GEORGE W. BUSH, THE WHITE HOUSE, October 16, 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Statement Opposing the Resolution Authorizing the Use of Force Against Iraq
I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time. Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.
-- RUSS FEINGOLD, October 9, 2002
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vote "NO'' On Iraq War Resolution US Statement
The American people deserve to know that the key issue here is that there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States of America. I will repeat: there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible evidence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and that it is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons. . . . And, again, and I stress, the American people need to know that there is no connection between Iraq and the events of 9-11. However, this resolution attempts to make the connection over and over and over.
-- DENNIS KUCINICH (D-OH), October 3, 2002
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Statement Opposing the use of Military Force against Iraq
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this resolution. . . . I have come to the conclusion that I see no threat to our national security. There is no convincing evidence that Iraq is capable of threatening the security of this country, and, therefore, very little reason, if any, to pursue a war. . . . I am very interested also in the process that we are pursuing. This is not a resolution to declare war. We know that. This is a resolution that does something much different. This resolution transfers the responsibility, the authority, and the power of the Congress to the President so he can declare war when and if he wants to. He has not even indicated that he wants to go to war or has to go to war; but he will make the full decision, not the Congress, not the people through the Congress of this country in that manner. . . . [A]n important aspect of the philosophy and the policy we are endorsing here is the preemption doctrine.
-- RON PAUL (R-TX), 8 October 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members. . . . It is clear that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. . . . If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise. [A] unilateral attack...cannot be ruled out. . . . This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction. . . . It is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation.
-- HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, October 10, 2002
Shawnmeat @ 370:
Malarkey. Some of us lived through this debacle and remember it like it was yesterday, we are not so easily duped. Hillary and her NeoCon cohort voted to give the power of Congress to declare war and handed it over to the President. She took the Peoples power and gave it away to a despot.
No reasonable person can honestly believe she showed good leadership and judgment on what she herself calls the most difficult decision of her life.
Paul in LA @ 402:
Funny to say a thing like that of my brother. He's only a computer information systems student at FSU. HA! What does he know about computers!
I didn't say he doesn't like to use the computer or use the internet, he said "arguing on the internet is retarded"
Believe me I won't come again. I look at crooksandliars.com every day for the best updates on what's happening in the US while I'm gone. I was intrigued by all the comments after each entry. Thought I might comment it but I realized quickly enough that this is the cast of one flew over the cookoo's nest. I believe some people in here qualify for the position of nurse rachet.
miss_kitty @ 404:
And what's your occupation know-it-all-ruler-of-the-chat-room?
@OxfordUni @ 403:
You're at Oxford? Why don't you ask them about their libel laws, in which YOU have the burden of proof if you make accusations like you did here. It's not like America, where it is much harder to sue over lies.
"However, the [British] common law of libel contains a kind of reverse-onus feature: a defamatory statement is presumed to be false unless the defendant can prove its truth."
@OxfordUni @ 408:
This is not actually a chat room (Open Threads for that).
In the comments you are required to be on topic.
You don't seem to have an on topic argument that has any substantiation you can offer.
I'm still waiting for you to say which Republican candidate you support. Will you vote for Mc freakin' Cain? Do you walk down the streets singing 'Bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran'?
@OxfordUni @ 408:
Oh, she's so far below you that it would make you cringe to know that you engaged in any sort of intercourse with her.
Time for you to get back to the ivory tower and polish the silver spoon. What better weapon to fight off all of those filthy social climbers.
Janitors...Feh!
Whoa, guys give the Oxford student a break. It's hard going there. I had a cousin who went there for a year and he came back so worn out and mentally exhausted. He's probably feeling the same thing.
Oxford Uni - go study and don't worry about these debates online. They aren't degrading to your intelligence it's just that some of us (including me) do this waaaaay too much and get really good at it. We snipe at newbies without mercy so we can feel good about ourselves. Cheer up and keep up the good work! We're proud of "run of the mill students" making it big.
- James
Paul in LA @ 410:
I support Hillary Clinton first, Obama second, McCain third and no one else is worth my consideration for a vote. I did support Biden 100% but now that he's out, It's Clinton.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/C/CAMPAIGN_RDP?SITE=WHIZ&SECTION=HO...
Campaigning in Nevada, Obama, said some of his opponents "don't seem to have anything positive to say about their own record. All they're trying to do is run me down."
Obama, seeking to become the first black president, didn't mention Clinton by name. But the reference was unmistakable after controversy over race and the Iraq war and as her campaign arranged a conference call to criticize his record on abortion.
In an interview on NBC, he was said the former first lady's campaign was seeking to stoke the race-related controversy. "I think there's some intentionality on the part of the Clinton campaign to knock us off message," he said.
Andy K @ 411:
uh huh, a 40 year old virgin stick his wrinkly dick in me is something that I would find extremely disgusting and repulsive.
NH_voter @ 412:
Well, thank the heavens there is SOMEONE in here that is understanding. I think it's just jealously on their part. They went to a community college (nothing against community colleges because that's where I started at) and are jealous they didn't have higher ambitions and now are working in a cubicle for corporate America making $30,000 a year.
The longer this goes on the more and more I dispise Hillary.
ADBH! (Any Democrat But Hillary)
she's such a DINO, no wonder Murdach through her a fundraiser
@OxfordUni @ 413:
John McCain is batshit crazy.
I recommend you vote for Mickey Mouse, if you get down that far in your preferences -- at least he won't end the world because a parking attendent burned rubber with his scooter-chair.
Shawnmeat @ 370
What you said about Hillary Clinton voting for
war is false. Pantomime all you want, but that will
remain the case for the rest of recorded history.
Read this, fer Chrissakes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Resolution
Here’s a fun tidbit:
The Resolution required President Bush’s diplomatic
efforts at the U.N. Security Council to “obtain
prompt and decisive action by the Security Council
to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and
strictly complies with all relevant Security
Council resolutions.”
WOW wikipedia is wrong for once.
Final Bill
blah, blah, blah
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq and encourages him in
those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
blah, blah, blah
Supports is not requires
KyleXY @ 62:
Nope! Can't move on just yet. Soldiers over there in Irag are still being killed and injured; and also the Iraqi people.
@OxfordUni @ 416:
You might be better holding off on the condescension until you take your finals.
It's Me @ 27:
You know it's just amazing to me how we forgot that Israel has spies all over the middle east. If Iraq and Saddam was really that much of an " imminent" threat, the Israelis would have taken the WMD and maybe Saddam out before waiting for us. They have a history of pre-emptive strikes – the UN and other nations be DAMNED.
After all wasn't Saddam paying the families of suicide bombers?
I think that is what Obama is refering to.
KyleXY @ 62:
I think that is a made up number .... I don't think it's was that high -- I don't know any liberals/progressive (other than those on capital hill) who were for it.
Is OxfordUni AnnCoulter? Only she could hate him.
Proud American @ 324:
Correction: DK lawyer submitted appeal to TEXAS and Willie Nelson appealed to get Kucinich in the Texas Ballot. Correction is that he has NOT won this lawsuit YET. But with the public watching closely on the TEXAS Jusicial system, it would be wise for them to rule with care and sensitivity.
Paul in LA @ 418:
That's your opinion. A valid one and I respect that but I disagree.
Doggiebobo @ 340:
I stand corrected: See #425
Paul in LA @ 421:
I already have, and I have got two Firsts (Oxford grading is different from the US but it's equivalent is an A).
I worked hard to get here. Both my parents are immigrants from Eastern Europe. My mother is a hair dresser and my father coaches soccer. I have encountered so much hatred from people because of where I am today and I have concluded it is jealously. Simple as that.
EZ @ 424:
Ann Coulter is psychotic. That's a really low blow even from bloggers.
Paul in LA @ 371:
You are very funny being so patronizing/ parochial, or, is it heavy-duty constipation ?
It is a FACT that Rahm E has never served in the US military - he used his being a DANCER as an excuse, then chopped his own finger off to get the deferrments.
During the 1991 Gulf War Rahm Emanuel volunteered for the Israeli Army (volunteers were not sent to combat but rather to support jobs) - he was an Israeli chickenhawk even then. I was told abt it, and his subsequent involvement, by a friend who used to be very high up w/ADL. As I recall RE was to be more into Tsahal's work, but obviously it was never black/white/open issue. His father supposedly had links to the Israeli right-wing and to the murder of UN's Count Bernadotte, which terminated any ideas of the dual Palestinian-Israeli State. I read abt this also in the Haaretz quite a while ago. The father is apparently considered a hero by the most reactionary right-wing Israeli elements.
Rahm has been called the Newt Gingrich of Democratic Party due to his nasty, carpetbagging and lying ways. He should be on Ritalin just to be able to focus for 2minutes, he suffers from some whatever disorder - a common knowledge. Just google..
" As for dual citizenship,"
You totally lie, or you cannot even quote from 3 lines above of your 'convenient" redacting. I said to EZ:
EZ: May be we should send Hillary to Israel so she can take care of the state of Israel rather than the U.S.
I think LIEberman is playing dual role and so are the pandering politicians.
We have to be loyal to the nation that you are living in and is fine to support other nations in times of crisis, but to is absolutely wrong."
"" You are RIGHT again. In the non-PC terms it’s called the FIFTH COLUMN.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_column
Nowadays in the US it’s called ‘dual loyalty’. Rahm Emanuel, Hillary’s main propagandist of the DCL , Ill Representative, has never served in the US military. "..
‘dual loyalty’ I used above is NOT dual citizenship you bs about..
I was LMAO what a twisting punk you are - I myself have more that 2 citizenships, am more than dual due to family ways. It does NOT have to have bearing on person's allegiance.
"dual loyalty" as ALL know = dual allegiance.
My FIFTH COLUMN link is very specific to keep things clear. But, you have to muddy it all up and then attack people, you constipated TROLL on constant duty.
There is a clear distinction between the nominal status of dual citizenship and the active exercise of dual allegiance.
The status of dual citizenship per se is not necessarily a problem. However, dual allegiance, in the sense of the active exercise of loyalty and allegiance to a foreign state, is inimical to American democracy.
... these actions reveal, "not only, something less than complete and unswerving allegiance to the United States, but also elements of an allegiance to another country in some measure, at least inconsistent with American citizenship." Vienna-born Justice Felix Frankfurter was right then and his principles are right for the 21st century
Polarizing the US elections to support Israel’s policies is a blatant exercise of loyalty and allegiance to a foreign state, by whoever is exercizing that. LIEberman, to start. Hillary brown-nosing him.
If someone does not serve in the US military, but volunteers w/Armed forces of a FOREIGN STATE, where is this person's allegiance ? Huh ?
Don't bother to come back w/ more bs.
get Benefiber, will not get you sense of humor, but might make it easier on your far regions.
Whatever ...
KyleXY @ 62:
Glad to say I'm one of the 10 percent, or for arguements sake, OPPOSED!!
I agree with Clytemnestra, there were probably alot more. Alot of people were opposed and hit the streets in protest before we even invaded. WORLDWIDE, the majority of people OPPOSED the war.
And worldwide, the real minority are the misguided, insular Americans who supported the war, basically because of their engrained, cocky "Let's go over there and kick their ass" attitude.
That's the truth.
SM @ 31:
LMAO!
Since when has a WEB SITE ever been compelled to be balanced? Unlike Fox, there is no pretension of balance here. That is understood from the start. So get over it. And ads pay for the site. Personally, I rarely even look at them. I could care less who slaps an ad up on this site. The repugs have the same access (balanced) but choose not to use it.
There are no reporters here.
I think that for a candidate to spend part of their interview talking about inconsistencies in their opponent's voting record is entirely legitimate. I wish more campaigns were predicated on explicating the candidates' records and contrasting them with those of their opponents.
And indeed, I believe she was sold a bill of goods by george bush. We all were. I doubt we will make any genuine progress until we face up to that.
"Senator Clinton briefly outlined why she voted as she did, that her vote was not one for preemptive war but for further UN weapons inspections, and that she had President Bush’s personal assurances that all avenues would be taken to prevent war, war as an option only of last resort."
Even if Clinton thought her vote was for further UN inspections she failed to hold Bush accountable afterwards for misleading or even lying to Congress. Clinton is trying her best to polish a turd that can not be polished.
I saw a tape today of bush speaking somewhere in the mid east. He was directing part of his speech to the people of Iran. He said they deserved a government who would listen to the people and would respond to their desires and needs. I had to wonder if he realized how ironic that sounded coming from him?
That is what I want in the white house, someone who does listen and respond to the needs of Americans, for a change.
"Ummm..Hillary thinks it would be ok if the war went on for a few years ….I think she said 2013 or so is when she would consider withdrawing…if the war is going any better by then….(yeah right)"
More rightwing disinformation. She has stated, on her website and in the press, beginning a phased redeployment within 60 days of her term. Personally, all the troops should be withdrawn immediately so I do not agree with her approach but let's stop perpetuating the rightwing lies and spin - THAT is truly Rovian: using our strengths (blogs) to get HIS message across.
That should read pretense of balance.
It's Me @ 27:
I'm glad you brought up the edited clip. Russert and NBC should be held to account for this deliberate attempt to
mislead the public. I sent Russert an email on the MSNBC Meet the Press website. I don't know how this low level
of so-called journalism could have infected the once great Meet the Press.
I have felt that some powerful people set up Obama to run. He has no record. He collected 100 Million dollars. A great deal of his money comes from very powerful financial and insurance interests. And the mainstream media, notoriously right-wing and pro-war are championing his candidacy.
I remember when he was first thrust into the public eye at the convention in 2004. I watched and listened, hoping for some passionate denunciation of the war in Iraq. Obama say NOTHING. I knew right then what was going on.
He spent the whole speech talking about himself - spicing it up "what a great country" and similar bromides.
His reply printed above reeks of his pomposity and arrogance.
I have been driven full speed ahead into the Clinton camp.
seananomie @ 49:
We're going to have to go focus on mastering the basics again. Thats the bottom line. It really is The Economy Stupid again. Only we are in much worse shape then when Bill inherited Reagan and Bush Sr's
$14 Trillion rip off of the American People.
See, this is why Clinton is not my favorite candidate.
Sorry, but I'm a person of good general-knowledge (especially about foreign matters). I knew who Osama and al-Quaeda were before 9/11. I knew who the Taliban were before 9/11. I knew who the Taliban were before they'd taken Kabul.
I also knew the Iraq war was bullshit from the get-go. After 9/11, I very quickly felt Bush was going to use it as a pretext to go after Iraq. I knew instinctively before 9/11 that Bush was going to attack Iraq any chance he got. You can go back as far as the 1999 presidential debate where Bush recieved the question on whether he was going to attack Iraq or not, and never said no. Or even a qualified no. Now, did I know that Iraq lacked WMDs? No I did not. But by the time Saddam voluntarily scrapped his over-range missiles, I was convinced. And I never thought that Iraq posed a serious threat to anyone at that time.
I knew the UN cooperation was a token charade, which was only performed because Bush's European allies like Blair would not attack Iraq without at least a symbolic attempt to use the UN first. I also felt that Bush was just itching to get the "UN thing" over with so he could attack already. I for one did NOT buy his personal assurances.
But Hillary wants me to believe that she did not know these things. That her instincts didn't tell her this. And any way I look at it, it's bullshit. Either she was badly informed - and why would I vote for a candidate who is less informed than me? - or she was following Bush's tide of jingoism and propaganda - and why would I vote for a candidate who lacks integrity?
SM @ 31:
Explain how it's FASCISM, OK? I mean you brought it up, smarty pants.
a lot of Clinton astro turf in this thread
SM @ 31:
Who let Jonah Goldberg in?
If senators were fooled before the 2002 vote, they wanted to be fooled. As I recall, the NYT and the Post had debunked the aluminum tube thing (and the administration kept using it as evidence) before the vote. The Democrats who voted for it were generally from conservative states (e.g. Landreau and Baucus), and those who one day wanted to be president. It was clear to just about everybody this was a railroad job.
You want to vote for a pork subsidy for campaign reasons, fine. But making a decision on war based on your own personal political interests comes pretty close, in my thinking, to disqualifying you for president. What decisions can I expect her to make in the White House because, even if wrong, they're good for her politically? Something else as serious as war? Edwards has done a little bit to address those concerns, Hillary hasn't done much to convince me she won't be making decision based on polls and which microgroup she happens to be targeting at the moment.
When I heard Hillary trying to explain what Bill meant by some of his statements, I thought of an old saying that is so true. "If you have to explain what you said, you have already lost the argument"
Get over it!!!
90% of Americans supported the war when it started.
Move on...
KyleXY @ 62:
And yet they still blame BushCo. Nice.
lopaloo102 @ 43:
Actually, you got it backwards. I see it as Edwards/Obama...and its the perfect scenario for Obama. Why? Cause he gets direct White House experience. He is young young young. He can run again. Even if he loses this time, its still win win for him, unless he totally blows himself up (unlikely). But the VP spot...win win win for him.
Douglas @ 59:
LOL!! Thanks for the chuckle. I needed that.
The corporations are afraid of Edwards and Clinton, Obama both have taken his agendas and applied them to there own campaigns. Shouldn't the person that sets the agenda be the one to get the press about it?
http://existentialist-corral.blogspot.com/2008/01/john-edwards-my-plan-t...
Bill isn't a whimp. Even the right wingers admit Bill almost relishes punishment and thrives on it. In the process he beat them twice in the 90's, and kicked their asses a third time leaving them with a "symbolic impeachment".
CNN) — Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign came out swinging Monday against the latest complaints from her rival, with former President Clinton announcing he has "a list of 80 attacks on Hillary" by Senator Barack Obama's campaign.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/01/14/bill-clinton-compiles-li...
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." --Ghandi
If Hillary voted for a bill where she THOUGHT it was sending weapons inspectors but was ACTUALLY AUTHORIZING A WAR, what does that say about her judgement?
What kind of President pays so little attention to what they're voting on that they can't be bothered to read it? That they can't be bothered to look at the reports, the classified information, or READ THE BILL AND SEE WHERE IT AUTHORIZES FORCE?!?
Yet the best response is "But Obama voted to continue funding!" Of COURSE he did! You know why? Because he is a just and right person. He doesn't agree with the war. he's against it. But god damn if he's going to let us jsut invade a country, fuck it up, then leave it to die. He's better than that.
Funding a war is far different than approving of it. Hillary did both, Obama just continued to make sure our troops had the funding they needed to continue their mission. Neither he nor the soldiers involved had a choice in whether or not this war started, but just like I don't accuse the soldiers who fight the war of supporting it, I don't accuse someone who continues funding the war with someone who supports it. They're different matters entirely.
Why can't Clinton stand by her record without attacking Obama? What can't Clinton fans stand by her record without attacking Obama?
L.A. Confidential @ 67:
I didn't realize Bill was that old to be so senile. Somebody please tell him to shut the hell up. He isn't running.
Clinton says in her 2003 war speech that Hussein was responsible for the killing of 20,000 Kurds and Iranians using gas. She provides the statistic to support her claim that Hussein was a tyrant and he and his government should be removed.
Then she talks about Milosevic being responsible for the deaths of 250,000. Again, she provides the statistic to support her tyrant argument and that Milosevic and his government should have been removed.
Ironically, today, the estimates are that as many of 1,000,000 Iraqis. Remember, America killed them in a war that America initiated. We attacked. Four times the number killed in ex-Yugoslavia.
Yet where is she on removing the man responsible for this? Where is she on impeaching George Bush? Silent.
No moral consistency.
Liberals always attack those without their views same as conservatives.
Thank god I'm moderate (the majority of the country is moderate by the way). I support McCain on the Republican side and Clinton on the Democrat side. Both candidates are thoroughly experienced and ready to lead.
please stop you obama crybabies. He based his whole campaign on a speech he gave in 2002 then in 2004 he agreed with G.W.
But conveniently took it off his website. And then he voted the same as hillary on funding the war..Now he is offended by the questions raised about his stance in the war. AGAIN, CLAIMING THAT HE IS AGAINST THE WAR HAS BEEN HIS PLATFORM.
Hell yes he should be questioned about it, not just by the Clinton campaign, but also by the MSM and yes by you.
Don't be blinded by the hype.
I agree with that. Even some of the most liberal people I met supported the war because at the time some people thought that it was revenge for 9/11. Now we know that's a false assumption.
NCTL @ 433:
Hear Hear!
Wow - it's scary when a woman doesn't bow down and ask for forgiveness, isn't it?
CappuccettoRosso @ 319:
Most immigrants keep the dual status so their assets are not frozen by their govt.
In addition, they send their dollars to the country of origin to avoid taxes.
In my view, dual citizens are not loyal to the U.S. They should not be allowed to vote or have any position in the public office.
NCTL @ 433:
Obama and Clinton are are LOUD on "CHANGE , EXPERIENCE and JUDGEMENT and VOICE" but what they both have in COMMON is what makes them NOT a change, Not experience that can deliver; Not a judgement without controversy and a VOICE that they only recently found--IN THIS ELECTION.
They will self distruct or become irrelevant as the campaign progress......for they both have MORE in common (baggages filled with skeleton to explain) and that is NOT CHANGE.
One AMERICA goes past:
Gender, Race, Religion, celebrity status, money, age, congeniality....................
THE bare ISSUE....the REAL ISSUES..... will escalate into the DEBATE. WAR, Constitution, HEALTH CARE, ECONOMY, HEALTH CARE.....in no specific order. Who among the candidates took an ACTUAL STAND on these ISSUES.
The true test will be the following:
VOTING RECORDS......CONSISTENT in ACTION.....GOOD JUDGMENT.....EXPERIENCES......COURAGE.....SPINE......HOPE....PEACE.....
Comments are closed on this entry
MoveOn endorses Barack Obama!
Super Tuesday Ohio Winner: Barack Obama
Why Is Barack Obama Buying Into White House Framing on Iran?
Crooks and Liars accepts donations via PayPal:
Or by snail mail:
CrooksandLiars.com
PO BOX 66310
Los Angeles, CA 90066