Hillary is NOT pro-war for crying out loud!!!

[mtnsnake]

I can't believe how many times people generalize this about her to make their point. She is not pro-war just because she voted to allow authorization for the invasion of Iraq...along with most other Democrats who did with her, thinking this would never become a real war. She and any other Democrat who voted for THAT war are not pro-war. They are not war mongers. They are guilty of voting to let Bush attack and oust Saddam for WMD's. Some of them are guilty to an extent for their parts in either making a mistake based on lies or in not stating that we should end the occupation ASAP, but they are not "pro-war" for crisesakes. Pro-IRAQ war, maybe, but Pro-War in general, absolutely not.

She is not a fucking Republican either, as so many here claim. Anyone who thinks she is pro-war or a Republican has NEVER attended one of her speeches and LISTENED to what she has to say. Hillary might not be a Democrat you like, but she's an excellent Democrat...like her or not. Perhaps she gets punished around here for not being as far left liberal as most of us here at DU would like her to be?

It just bothers me when people try to put any Democrats into the same mold as Republican war mongers when they don't deserve that kind of label. Those Dems deserve to be criticized for their part in falling for ONE war, yes, but they don't deserve to be called "Republicans" or "prowar" in general, without some specific clarification.

Republicans are the ones who promote wars, not Democrats, not Hillary, not Kerry, not MOST ANY Democrat I know.

Just trying to add some missing balance. Fire away.

[SHRED]

1. Just pro-occupation n/t

[mtnsnake]

6. If you read the post, and not just the thread title, you would've seen

that I mentioned something along that line. As I said in the OP....

Some of them are guilty to an extent for their parts in either making a mistake based on lies or in not stating that we should end the occupation ASAP

[SHRED]

20. You're correct...

I did "knee-jerk" a bit on that one.


:blush:

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

87. I'm having trouble with the "mistake" part.

Reacting to the first blush is unbecoming of a Senator.

[Dewatson]

79. I wish she would speak out against whatever the fuck we are dropping on

children in Iraq.

[Larkspur]

2. Two thirds of the Dems in Congress OPPOSED IWR

Hillary has no legitimate excuse for her vote for IWR. It was pure political adultery.

She also wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq. With Army and Marine recruiting at a 26 year low, where is she going to find the troops to try to quell an energetic insurgency? Will she send her daughter to Iraq? Don't think she has the moral courage to do that.

Oh, and she also favors oursourcing IT jobs to India.

Hillary will not get my support or vote. I'm an Enemy of Hillary.

[tatertop]

21. Her actions all seem to say ESCALATE!

Democrats true to Democratic ideals might want to start
calling her "no way Hillary."

[brainshrub]

24. I'm not Hillary's enemy, but I'm sure as heck not going to support her.

DU is going to be a very interesting place if Hillary wins the Democratic nomination in 2008.

While I wouldn't disrupt DU, (I've been a mod; I still wince when I see flame-bait.) I may have to take a break from this site for a few months and join a 3rd party.

[tatertop]

31. Yes sir.

My sad thoughts on the matter parallel yours.

[leftchick]

60. I am with you brainshrub

I sure hope it does not happen. :(

[Clark2008]

63. Massive breakdowns, I predict.

I can't support her, either, but less for any of her triangulationism and more for the fact that my piddly vote for her wouldn't count anyway.

If Hillary is the nominee, she loses my state by 20-25 percent. I'll just write in a vote for someone who I think would be better, given those odds. Might as well.

[ladjf]

61. I'm in total agreement with you. Mrs. Clinton is no friend of the

American people. I am very afraid that her name recognition will allow her to become the Dem candidate in 2008.

[maximovich]

3. She Isn't Pro-War

She's just too careful to not piss-off the prowar crowd. She needs to abandon the idea that this war has any honor left to it.

[mtnsnake]

18. I happen to agree with you to an extent.

I don't think she's promoting this war as having any honor left in it, though. Yes, like Kerry, she's not sure we can simply pick up all our troops and bring them home right away. She's concerned that, now that we're in this mess, we have to do what's right for them AND us.

I certainly agree she's not trying to piss off the prowar crowd.

[tinrobot]

22. There aren't too many pro-war citizens left.

...and ones who do still support the war would never vote for Hilary anyways.

The winds have changed. She needs to change her course if she wants to be president.

[maximovich]

29. you got that right (nt)

[Tom Joad]

4. She trusted Bush... unlike the hundreds of millions who marched...

against the war.

Her hubby bombed Iraq from the air.

He also kept in place sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands.

She is not a Republican. Neither was LBJ.

[mtnsnake]

32. The legacy of LBJ doesn't make Hillary prowar, or any other Democrat

either. There are always exceptions to the rule and LBJ's brutal ESCALATION of the Vietnam War is one of them.

Hillary is not prowar. Voting to give Chimpy authorization does not make her a prowar person as so many here falsely claim.

[Loonman]

5. "the ones who promote wars, not Democrats,"

Lyndon Johnson was a Democrat.

[Tom Joad]

11. We made mention of that simultaneously. GMTA eom

[tinrobot]

7. She needs to start leading us away from war.

I'm sick of spineless Democrats who are always trying to play both sides of the issue. Hillary needs to take a stand to end this war or get out of the way for those who will.

[mtnsnake]

34. I agree with you. I'm sick of them, too. At the same token, some Dems

are trying to do what it takes to insure a Democrat gets elected in 2008. They're walking a fine line, and it doesn't take much to tip the balance one way or the other, since it's a time of war. The priority is that we get a Democrat elected. Then we can end this obscene war that was based on lies and corruption. You'll see, if a Democrat who voted to authorize this war gets elected, you can throw that vote out the window, cuz he or she will get us the fuck outta there once they're in office. They just need to get elected.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. The "Duh, I was duped" defense for killing people.

She's not "pro-war" but supports sending more troops to Iraq.
She's not "pro-war" but clings to the CYA notion of staying the course.

She's a real sweetheart and friend of humanity. Just like her pal in the White House that she supports with her votes.

[papau]

9. I agree with you - but the anti-Hillary group is a loud subset of the

anti-war group (which is just about all of DU - DU folks are into defense and not wars not required for defense).

Indeed you will find those that say they will not vote for anyone that voted to stop the WMD threat by giving Bush a yes vote on the IWR. Guess they prefer another GOPer if that is the only other choice.

Meanwhile DU always gets it on with discussions of which Dem should win the primary. And Hillary has those who love her as well as those that hate her and of course folks in between, on DU, relative to best choice in a primary.

[mtnsnake]

36. Well said, papau. As much as we all want the same end result around here,

we sure are passionate about our differences along the way.

[papau]

41. Thanks for the nice comment :-)

:-)

[Jacobin]

10. She proposed ADDING 80,000 troops to Iraq

to 'get the job done right'.

Thinking like that is what will get dems in big big big bigger trouble.

There is no 'getting it right'. Its an occupation about to be run out by a popular resistance (84% of Iraqis want the U.S. out right now).

To think that you can 'get this right' by adding troops is addle-brained and suggests that going in to begin with was a good idea. She voted to go in. She fucked up. She's trying to spin her way out of it.

[tatertop]

25. Hillary: Stop thinking about '08. Do Your Damn Job Now!

Stop selling us to the pukes.
Help us.

[Jon8503]

48. That is what I said and what pissed me off about her voting for the

war. She is in a state where she is safe and did not have to support Bush's war. However, she was thinking about 2008 instead of doing her job as senator and doing the right thing.

I do not support her for President.

[tatertop]

51. I used to love her. Now I cannot even support her.

We need Gore.

[Jon8503]

62. Right now he is my candidate with Obama. N/T.

[William769]

12. Don't you know better than to speak the truth here about Senator Clinton?

I for one love the lady. But I would say we have some here that hate her so much... wait isn't that the GOP?

[mtnsnake]

38. Thanks, man. I thought I was alone for a sec!

Yeah it sure does seem she's hated as much or more here than she is by repukes sometimes. Unfairly so, I believe, especially because I don't think that too many people here have really gotten to know her, other than the mistake she and so many others made to authorize Bush's invasion.

[sendero]

54. Most of us..

..... don't expect much from Rethugs. We demand more of our own leaders. Hillary is has NOTHING going for her other than her husband's name on the national scene.

She's just like Kerry in that she wants to be president SO BAD that she is actively sabotaging any chance she may have ever had to be so.

People who tailor their positions to trendy opinions really take it in the shorts when the trend is over. 2-3 years ago, it was trendy to be willing to do ANYTHING to APPEAR "tough on terror". I think that trend is over.

[William769]

58. "she wants to be president SO BAD"

Care to show proof of this, or is this just more right wing talking points?

[sendero]

68. I've never heard that from a winger...

... but if they say it - that would be one of the few times I agree with them.

How else do you explain her blatant triangulation actions? Hillary takes "pandering" to a whole new level. Take her ridiculous stance on video games. Either she is pandering or she is a fucking moron. Take your pick. Either way, I have no use for her.

I understand that politics is compromise, I think Hillary makes all the wrong compromises.

[William769]

71. You still offer no evidence.

Thats because there isn't any.

[sendero]

72. The video game bs..

... is a perfect example, you just don't want to hear it.

There are others, but nothing will change your mind and quite frankly I've watched her long enough, nothing will change mine.

Name one substantial accomplishment for Democrats that Hillary has made happen. I'm waiting.

[William769]

73. "There are others"

Please give examples.

I'll bet you can't.

BTW The video game bullshit does not prove she is running for President.

[rmgustaf]

13. She is moving to the middle

Something no Democrat should be doing now. I mean, c'mon, on stage with Newt Gingrich? And going on and on about how violent videogames like Halo 2 are going to make me shoot up a post office? Please...

She lost my vote a while ago.

[mtnsnake]

40. She only APPEARS to be moving toward the middle

She's a politician and a clever one. She wants to get elected, not so she can move the party toward the right, but so she right the ship. She's not as centrist as many believe. If appearing more centrist is the only thing that will get one of our Democrats elected, then so be it. Once they're in office they move back toward the left.

[Pithy Cherub]

45. Hillary neglected to give you her change of address Middle City.

Being a centrist is no guarantee of getting elected. Especially in primary season, where those of us who are PROUDLY liberal, vote in larger numbers. She is running a General Election strategy and the primary voters will be a bit discerning.

If Dean takes New Hampshire & Iowa out of first votes, then all bets are off.

[mtnsnake]

57. I agree it's no guarantee at all

especially during the primaries. In fact, I think Hillary MAY have a harder chance getting through the Democratic primaries than she would actually have in getting elected president. Liberals do have a tremendous say in the primaries.

[GrpCaptMandrake]

14. And apparently rather gullible

"She is not pro-war just because she voted to allow authorization for the invasion of Iraq...along with most other Democrats who did with her, thinking this would never become a real war."

Democrats gave a Bush the power to wage war and didn't think he'd *use* it? Does she also give bottles of MD 20/20 to winos thinking they won't drink it?

I'm glad Hillary's on our side. I truly am. She can raise money like a Nebraskan raises corn. She's mostly super-smart. If she sticks with it, she will forge a noble and lasting senate career. But that's exactly where she needs to stay. She told the people of New York she wanted to be their senator, not that she wanted to use them as a springboard to the presidency.

[LoKnLoD]

15. She is

just pro-whichever-way-the-wind-blows. I wish she would go away.

:rant:

On edit: she is a smart lady and I respect her achievements, I just don't want her as a presidential nominee.

[mtnsnake]

42. That's fair enough

I especially like your edit.

She's not necessarily my first choice to become president either, but I wouldn't mind if she was. She's a brilliant lady, an even better politician, and I honestly believe she'd endorse most of what we all want if she got into the WH. She's doing what all ambitious politicians do...she's playing the game. I don't think she's overstepped the bounds of the game yet.

[bowens43]

16. She hasn't said that her vote was a mistake......

She has moved steadily to the right since becoming a Senator.

[mtnsnake]

43. I wish she and all the other Dems who voted yest would admit that

it was a mistake, but the ones with designs on the WH just aren't going to risk doing making that particular political gamblem, unfortunately.

[Tesha]

17. Sorry -- you are what you vote. She's pro-war. (NT)

[mtnsnake]

47. Nope, she's not "pro-war" & neither are Kerry, et al. That's too general

a statement and simply not true. I guess we can agree to disagree on that one. :)

[Tesha]

70. The alternative is that they were both "damned fool idiots".

I'll let you choose.

Tesha

[Junkdrawer]

19. "Pro-IRAQ war, maybe, but Pro-War in general, absolutely not. "...

Talk about cold comfort...

[Walt Starr]

23. I can't disagree more vehemently

She supports the war to this day.

Reid flung the doors open for Democrats to swithc their positions on the war and she has yet to do so.

She's as pro-war as any republican in the Senate, and more pro-war than several!

[mtnsnake]

49. Walt, c'mon. She doesn't simply "support the war"

Because she's concerned that we can't simply pack up and leave Iraq as quickly as we'd all like, that doesn't make her prowar. Hillary is not prowar. Few democrats are. Yes, they helped get us into THIS mess, but they are not prowar politicians. Do they make mistakes? Yes. Are they part of this current mess in Iraq? Of course they are, but they are NOT prowar Democrats. Should they be criticized for going along with the tide on this Iraq War? Absolutely.

Prowar in general? No way.

[Walt Starr]

80. Then she should come out and say it

Eitehr she's for it or against it and from everything she's said to date, she's for it.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

53. And I agree with you whole-heartedly Walt.

I kept emailing her not to vote for the resolution and received a form letter response that was gung-ho, even if the majority of NYers, like myself, were against the war. I gave up on her then, because if little ole me knew that the case for WMDs was bogus, why didn't she? Now she has yet to take a stand against it. She is a Republican in Democratic Drag. I swore to myself I would never vote for her again, and I won't.

[seabeyond]

26. her and hubby have some splainin' to do then.

doesnt matter clinton 8 year in office, and what they say now all have to be talked about then. unless she has addressed all this and what they have said. i havent seen it. if she has, please, let me know. i dont have desire to create someone that they are not. but...... i wonder in what i see from her and clinton. and they sayng nothing, but vagueness on this subject. kerry a ZILLION more times clear on his position than hillary. and from reading peoples posts on kerry, i guess that is saying something

[Captain Hilts]

27. The "War Vote" was to give Bush a bargaining chip at the UN...

and thereby encourage the UN to get involved.

But more Democrats need to explain that and step away from it.

Hillary gets too much #@*! for this.

[Noisy Democrat]

37. Does Hillary actually believe that?

Kerry has said that loud and clear, and repeatedly. He's called for a commitment to no permanent bases in Iraq, and he's calling for troop reductions starting over Christmas. He has also said that he would NOT have voted the same way if he had it all to do over again, and for more than a year, he has said that he would NOT have invaded Iraq. Has Hillary said all those things? My impression is that she stands behind her vote and thinks the occupation is a good thing. Anyone with evidence to the contrary, please provide links!

[Connie_Corleone]

39. Democrats have been saying that since 2004. It didn't work.

The vote gave Bush the authority to go to war. Even if all of the conditions weren't met by Bush, the ones who voted for the IWR gave him that authority.

However, maybe Hillary isn't saying she was duped by the intelligence because she really believed Saddam was a threat that needed to be confronted. Everyone just assumes that her votes are politically motivated. She is a centrist Democrat. I never thought she was a liberal. Maybe she embraces this whole democracy in Iraq idea.

I don't agree with her on any of this, but at least she's consistent unlike the Senators who are saying they were duped.

I have more respect for those who did NOT vote for the IWR than those who voted for it and are now saying they were duped. JMHO.

[SOS]

50. Bush never wanted to go to the UN

Powell, and Bush Sr., pushed for it. The Cheney/Rumsfeld axis didn't want to bother with the "chatterbox".
The IWR was not designed to encourage the UN to get involved.
It was designed to start a war against Iraq.
Only Bush is given the power to "determine":

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION-...the President shall...make available...his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

Hillary and other political opportunists gave Bush, and only Bush, the power to determine whether "peaceful means are not likely to lead to enforcement of UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq". That line completely circumvents the UN. It was a blank check and Hillary signed it.

[mtnsnake]

52. Lots of great responses here, and yours is one of them

One of my biggest pet peeves is that Democrats as a group have done a poor job in EXPLAINING. If they only explained things properly, if they only framed their positions the way you just did, we wouldn't be so far behind.

[wuushew]

67. That "bargaining chip" was essentially a death threat against Iraq.

and the Senate vote was test of approval for the concept.

Is threatening murder moral and acceptable to you? If the concept is valid then it is very possible that we will be going to war with Iran under the remainder of the Bush term or the next POTUS.

[Captain Hilts]

69. The UN just rolled over and played dead.

The opposite reaction they should have mustered.

Anan should have been more adamant and told the weapons inspectors to stay.

But for Bush to have gone to the UN without backing of the senate, he would have seemed weak and the UN would have done nothing. Instead, he went with the vote, looked scary serious about launching a war and the UN did nothing. Why didn't Anan or anyone note that opposition to the war by "allies" such as Italy and Spain was HUGE?

Anan and the UN made errors of omission and Bush errors of commission. The rest is tragedy.

[SOS]

84. Bush made it clear

that he did not need UN "permission" to launch his attack on Iraq.

2003-

Oct. 11: Congress authorizes an attack on Iraq.

Nov. 8: The UN Security Council unanimously approves resolution 1441 imposing tough new arms inspections on Iraq.

Nov. 18: UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq for the first time in almost four years.

Jan. 28, 2003: In his State of the Union address, President Bush announces that he is ready to attack Iraq even without a UN mandate.

Feb. 14: In a UN weapons inspections report on Iraq, chief inspector Hans Blix indicates that progress has been made in Iraq's cooperation with the weapons team.

Feb. 24–March 14: The U.S. and Britain's lobbying efforts among UN Security Council members to garner support for a strike on Iraq yield only two supporters (Spain and Bulgaria).

March 20: The war against Iraq begins 5:30 a.m. Baghdad time (9:30 p.m. EST, March 19).

Only two nations on the UNSC supported Bush and Bliar. Every other nation said NO. Bush attacked six days later. There was nothing the UN could do. Bush had nearly zero support and launched his war anyway.

What could the UN have done, other than a near unanimous rejection of Bush's War?

[Cults4Bush]

98. Than those who voted for it are complete fuckin' idiots.

Sorry but the rest of the world was really damn sure that they were going with or without the UN.

It just doesn't wash, and i understand you and the others who take similar stands to defend every Dem at any cost, your loyalty is almost as rigid as the repubs and that isn't altogether bad.

The excuse above is just that an excuse, cover for their votes. Its BS and the result was 100,000s dead, torutured, maimed, raped, wrongfully imprisoned, resource theft, the training of thousands and thousand so of terrorists, warcrimes, outlawed weapons, black site prisons... for a fuckin' bargaining chip! Seriously how on earth if what you say is the 100% cold hard truth and their best excuse, could they not be considered completely fucking ignorant or wilfully naieve?

[Pithy Cherub]

28. Hillary should be held accountable for her words, actions and votes.

If she was not pro-war, would she have enabled George Bush by authorizing the Iraq War, continued votes for military spending, asking for additional troop deployments, and being quoted widely on staying in Iraq, then what would that be but a proponent of the Iraq debacle? Hmmmmmm. :freak:

Perhaps, it would be better to address concerns to Mrs. Clinton regarding her words, actions and deeds rather than bemoaning the fact that informed voters that pay attention to national security policies are holding hers to the sunlight for everyone to see.

[MadHound]

30. Let's see here

She voted for the IWR, despite the wishes of her constituency and the protests of millions upon millions of people here in this country, and against the prevailing sentiment at the time(all major polls at the time of the IWR vote state that the large majority of Americans did not want to do anything, including enacting the IWR, until the inspectors finished their job).

She has openly and repeatedly stated that she wants to increase the number of troops in Iraq, and rather than coming up with an exit plan, she has only presented plans to continue the occupation and further the misery.

She has voted for each and every funding bill for the war that comes before her, despite the mounting evidence that we can't "win" and despite the publics' increasing cries to pull out.

Damn well sounds like she is a hawk to me friend. And please, please don't revert to those two stale chestnuts, the arguements that she was somehow duped by Bushco and that voting for the IWR wasn't voting for the war. If she was indeed truly duped by Bushco, then she is to stupid to hold any office, much less the presidentcy. And if millions and millions of ordinary people knew that the IWR would immediately lead to our illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq, then she damn sure should have known it too.

I'm sorry, you can spin and split hairs all you want, but at the end of the day it comes down to two salient points: Hillary did indeed authorize this illegal and immoral war. And she continues to be a warmonger with every funding bill she approves of.

And thus, if she runs for the White House, she won't get my vote. I do not reward politicians who have the blood of tens of thousands of innocents on their hands. And Hillary's are as bloody as anybody else short of those in the White House.

[mtnsnake]

55. Well written post

and I've tried my best to avoid using those two "chestnuts" you mentioned as being an excuse ;)

[papau]

33. Wonder if someone will list the "correct" Hillary action and the likely

public response to such action at that time?

Or is listenting to the majority of voters "blowing in the wind" and no solid beliefs?

Sure glad we have solid beliefs in this guy Bush - he surely never admits error and never changes. And he is rewarded with over 75% approval within his own party, and is given a media that admires a strong leader like himself.

And Dems are going to defeat GOPers standing like George in 06 and 08 by being the folks not supporting the troops, not voting for funding, not voting to give the Generals the number of troops that they say they need to keep the troops safe - right?

Pull Out method and date are real issues - the IWR vote is not.

In My Humble opinion. :-)

Today's McCain stay and be tough in Iraq speech DU comments
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2239278

[Noisy Democrat]

35. She supports permanent bases in Iraq, correct?

I don't have a link for that, but I read it somewhere. If you're a Hillary fan, can you confirm or deny that she thinks permanent US military bases in Iraq are a good idea?

John Kerry has loudly and repeatedly called for a commitment to NO permanent US bases in Iraq. Where does Hillary stand on that? If she thinks permanent bases are a good idea, then she's pro-occupation, and that's bad enough.

I'd also like to know when/how/if Hillary has spoken out against the war. Kerry warned against rushing to war from the get-go, and has spoken out against it repeatedly. Can anyone link me to some Hillary speeches blasting the war? I can provide links to Kerry speeches if desired, no problem.

[seabeyond]

46. commitment to NO permanent US bases in Iraq.

this is important to me on the stance too. i would like to know also. if we are expected to support this person, there is a responsibility to answer the questions?????

[mtnsnake]

56. I don't remember ever hearing that

but maybe someone around here can find out about that one.

[Connie_Corleone]

44. Hillary is a centrist Democrat who doesn't regret her IWR vote.

Just stating the facts. She's been very consistent in her support for this war.

Now, people want her to say she was duped or wrong to vote for the IWR? If she did that, then what will most of you say? "Oh, she's just doing this because she wants to run for president."

I really think she does NOT regret her IWR vote. So why demand she change her mind? If you don't want her to be the Democratic nominee in 2008, don't vote for her. You don't need to find another excuse not to vote for her.

[KG]

59. yes, she is. as is the the rest of the dem party leadership.

but feel free to parse and spin yourself dizzy.

[Deb]

64. She needs to win in 2006 first

Support from upstate military contractors, suppliers and employees will help her. I'm keeping an open mind until after '06 elections because I have no idea what her internal polls are saying.

IMHO, the GOP has a moderate candidate waiting in the wings should she announce an anti-war stance before re-election. I'm very concerned the GOP Hillary bashing is really about '06.

Does anyone know how "safe" her Senate seat is?

[Tom Joad]

65. Don't worry about how "safe her seat is... worry about if the world is ...

safe from the policy of Hillary Clinton and her ilk.

[mtnsnake]

66. What upstate military contractors, & suppliers are you referring to?

[Deb]

74. Companys like BAE, Lockheed Martin

Schweizer Aircraft, Raytheon and Northrop Grumman. Sorry I didn't get right back to you.

[mtnsnake]

76. Thanks, Deb

That is food for thought.

[walldude]

88. Have you seen her opponent?

Complete and utter moron. Not even a Moran but a true blue moron. and her husband has some ties to the mob or something. Clintons seat is totally safe.

[leesa]

75. Really...must be the deafening noise she is making about the war being

illegal and immoral and demanding its end that is confusing us.

[Danger Duck]

77. I don't think she's pro war, but she still has the wrong stuff.

Very few people are pro war. Hell, even most people in the White House aren't pro-war, they're just pro-power and pro-profit, two benefits of the war. Only a real special asshole is truly prowar, like Cheney or Rove.

Hillary still got out of the way for the messopotamia, and for that, I don't think she has the moral authourity to mount a proper campaign. We remember kerry, right?

[mtnsnake]

81. Most people in the White House aren't pro-war? Are you serious?

The two most powerful people in the WH, Bush and Cheney, used nothing BUT a war to advance themselves into a second term. The war is the only thing those cowards have going for them when it comes to making the sheep go bahhh.

[Danger Duck]

83. Not disagreeing with you....

just saying that they are more interested in the spoils of war, power, fear, profit. I don't think Bush gets a chubby sending troops to die. Cheeny, yeah, he loves it.

[Noisy Democrat]

85. Kerry is now leading

on the issue of getting us out of Iraq. McCain blasted Kerry's plan today, arguing that we need to send more troops rather than pull them out.

I've heard a strong rumor that Hillary's idea is that Dems should just keep quiet and wait for Republicans to solve the problem, because anyone who says anything about Iraq will just get stomped on anyway. How very presidential of her. Not.

[Danger Duck]

94. Kerry's "plan" is a farce.

It makes no sense. If we just remove twenty thousand troops, wouldn't that increase the amount of danger for the remaining troops? From what I understand, one of the major problems was not sending enough troops. So, calling for the removal of some, and not all, when there is still no clear objective, is pandering. If it makes the fight more intense for those who remain, it is foolish. All, nothing, or stated objective.

[Noisy Democrat]

95. The 20,000

is the same 20,000 that are being sent for the December 15th election. Bush seems to be trying to do a sneaky escalation -- saying that he's only sending troops for the election but then leaving them there. Kerry wants to avoid escalation by bringing them right back, as a first step towards bringing more back -- with those later troop withdrawals contingent on meeting specific political goals. If they've managed without the 20,000 so far, they can manage without them again in January.

[Danger Duck]

96. Ok, but help me out.

My understanding, and I am far from a military expert, is that we don't have enough troops over there right now. It creates a constant danger to the troops and the citizens of Iraq. So, bringing troops home should be done if we have met some goal or citeria, or we are leaving the region.

[Noisy Democrat]

97. Right

That's why Kerry's plan is that we set benchmarks for progress, with target dates -- if we don't make the progress by that date, we don't pull any troops out, but this way everyone knows what the goals and hoped-for troop reductions are. It will help show the insurgents that we don't plan to occupy Iraq forever, help show Iraqis who want to hold their country together that they have to get it together because we won't be there forever, and puts more pressure on US politicians to exercise skilled diplomacy to start calming things down between Sunnis and Shiites (and to get more help from allies -- there are lots of ways allies can help even if they don't want to send troops, and Kerry has itemized many of them). Right now, everyone from the blowhards in the US government who are running this farce to the Sunni and Shiite leaders thinks they can horse around and be unreasonable and/or incompetent forever, because the US will just leave troops there to keep the situation from going 100% down the toilet, and meanwhile the insurgents can recruit like crazy from people who think the US plans to be there forever and who are willing to die to try to throw us out. Kerry's plan puts everyone on a program to get their shit together, and sends a clear signal that we do not have ambitions of a permanent occupation.

[Danger Duck]

99. Thanks, Makes more sense now.

God help me, I just don't like Kerry. Nut what described sounds reasonable.

[MrSlayer]

78. "...thinking this would never become a real war."

Are you kidding me? If we all knew what was going to happen she sure as shit did too. She voted that way out of political expediency, just like she does everything else. What a bullshit excuse.

[Guaranteed]

90. That's what I picked out, too.

I don't think anyone was honestly thinking that Bush WASN'T going to invade.

[BL611]

82. DAMN YOU

and your horrible logic and reason. Using ridiculous hyperbole is FUN!! So what if you sound like a right wing talk radio host????Damn party pooper.....

[mtnsnake]

86. Yes, logic and reason

the enemy of hyperbole! I guess it doesn't matter if you come off as a RW radio host, so long as it's Hillary who's the brunt of the exagerrations. lol

[Guaranteed]

92. LOL "logic and reason." nt

[walldude]

89. Actually this is a decent thread

not too much flaming going on and some good opinions on both sides.
While I like and respect Hillary and would like nothing more than to see a strong woman candidate I cannot in good conscience vote for her as President. You have to admit that alot of what people have said on this thread is true. She did vote for the war resolution, she still supports the war and she supports troop escalation to get the job done. Problem with that is she is wrong. What we need to do is pull out. Total cease-fire and withdrawal. The absolute worst case would be that the country dissolves into civil war. Considering that all they have for weapons are IED's and guns and maybe a few rpg's or something it couldn't be as bad as us bombing the crap out of them. And we don't even know if it will. The only reason there is fighting in Iraq right now is because we are there. It's us against the insurgents. Let's get out of the equation and see what they do.

Another thing is the pandering she does. It can't be denied that she is drifting towards the middle. Sure it's playing politics but is that really what we need right now? No. America is in deep shit, we don't need someone to play politics with us. We need a leader. A leader who will get up and tell us we are in deep shit and it's going to take sacrifices from every single American to make things right. Deep down Americans are good people and they are willing to sacrifice, and they are willing to work. We are at our best when things are at their worst. We need a leader to break this cycle of greed America has grown accustomed to and work together to get us out of this shit hole. A Hillary vote for me would just once again be the lesser of 2 evils. And I'm sick of that crap.

Oh and that cycle of greed comment came from this brilliant quote today:

"Charles Grassley (R-IA): You know, what--what makes our economy grow is energy. And, and Americans are used to going to the gas tank (sic), and when they put that hose in their, uh, tank, and when I do it, I wanna get gas out of it. And when I turn the light switch on, I want the lights to go on, and I don't want somebody to tell me I gotta change my way of living to satisfy them. Because this is America, and this is something we've worked our way into, and the American people are entitled to it, and if we're going improve (sic) our standard of living, you have to consume more energy."
What an asshole

[Guaranteed]

91. Well, shit. All I can say is that we can't count on her

to stand up against entirely obvious, warmongering lies in order to keep 2000+ Americans from getting killed, as well as 10's of thousands of Iraqis, a few hundred billion dollars from being wasted, our troops getting tied up in a pointless war when there are real terrorists out there who attacked us and our reputation as "the good guys" from being ruined for decades.

That's all. We just can't count on her to do that.

But she's not "pro-war." OK, fine.

[madfloridian]

93. Not pro-war, but agreeable with the mind-set of spreading Democracy.

That is the way I see it. I doubt that she or any of our Democrats would have done it as harshly as Bush and his cronies. However, please look at the PPI/Third Way groups with which she has aligned herself.

They advocate the same ideas of changing the face of the middle east, they just use different words. I think many are for that, and it makes me angry.

Some are waking up, some are not. I don't think she is. I agree, I don't think she is pro-war, just goes with the progressive internationalism.