Obama's sleazy move with the memo to the Times and his attachment to Colin.

[Captain_Nemo]

I have been a Hillary supporter but I must say I have been swayed periocially by Barack - his voting record (excellent) his mind (smart). However, this latest move is disturbing. And, then his listening to Colin Powell?!?

Obama gets advice from Colin Powell - Powell, who abandoned his principals and stayed loyal to Bush and his war. And, received a 1995 Jag from Bandar Bush.

Powell is in knee deep in this Iraq crap. And, he has a relationship (sort of ) with Bandar Bush.

http://pauldevis.blogspot.com/2007/04/prince-bandar-bin-sultan-saudi-prince.html

I am now completely in the Hillary camp.

[LoZoccolo]

1. Every piece of advice from Colin Powell has to be judged on it's own merits separately.

You cannot taint it by association.

[aquart]

You can't?

[LoZoccolo]

47. If Ann Coulter said the sky was blue, you are not required to then think it's green.

Should be obvious.

[Captain_Nemo]

61. I would think Barack is smarter than to get advice from a guy that had reservations about Iraq yet,

went along with it and promoted it. Just last night on Charlie Rose Brezinski said Colin, having expressed his doubts about Iraq, should have resigned then and there. NOT gone to the UN and pushed it. He is a good soldier. NOt a leader. If he had said no to Iraq and resigne dwe might be in a different situaion right now. Colin is trying to bolster his tainted image.
I wouldn't listen to Colin ever again...

[Evergreen Emerald]

119. but it says something about your ability to make good choices

If you are consulting with Ann Coulter about anything.

[KittyWampus]

123. actually, if I wanted to learn how the GOP smear machine worked I'd DEFINATELY talk to Coulter

live your life in a self righteous bubble and you're not in touch with reality.

[Evergreen Emerald]

144. "self righteous bubble not in touch with reality? "

Yes, it does appear that you have learned discourse from Ann Coulter. "Reality," appears to depend on your definition.

[Captain_Nemo]

60. So do you give the same benefit of the doubt to George W. Bush? Why not? Colin is disgraceful

[LoZoccolo]

65. See #47.

This is common sense.

[Captain_Nemo]

77. This is common sense: If Powell had not been loyal to Bush and stood his ground would we be in IRaq?

[LoZoccolo]

93. Don't change the subject. n/t

[Captain_Nemo]

102. I'm not. You're talking common sense. Colin is a big reason we are there. And barack takes advice

from him?!?! Where does he stand?

[LoZoccolo]

110. Now you can go all the way back to #1. n/t

[Captain_Nemo]

126. Again, I stand by the fact that had he stood up for what he thought was right we wouldn't be in Iraq

[blm]

137. Bush is the BIGGEST reason we're there and Clintons stood PUBLICLY to support his policies

on terrorism and Iraq from 2001 through 2006.

Powell was following orders from Bush - what were the Clintons doing staying closer to Bush on terror and Iraq policy more than the Dem candidates in 2003 and 2004 and up to the last vote on Iraq last month?

[Hippo_Tron]

150. Bush isn't qualified to give advice, Powell is

I'll admit that I hope Obama is taking anything Powell says with a grain (or more) of salt, but Powell has been a central figure in foreign affairs for many years.

[BeyondGeography]

2. So being in the Clinton camp puts you in the sleaze-free zone...feel better now?

:rofl:

[Fridays Child]

3. The magnificent power of dissonance reduction makes it so.

It's crazy strong stuff.

[Captain_Nemo]

67. Huh?

[jefferson_dem]

4. If the war is your big issue, why give one who voted to launch it a pass?

Exhibit A (Hillary in 2003) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8

Exhibit B (Obama in 2002) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8

[draft_mario_cuomo]

6. Why do you give the man who actually helped launch it a pass?

If HRC voted "no" it would have made no difference. The vote would have been 76-24. Wow!

What really made a difference was Powell using his prestige--which was very high at the time--to pimp the war by lying to the American people and the world. Remember his blatant lies at the UN? Now Obama is getting advice from a confirmed liar and warmonger. The audacity of hope? How about the audacity of arrogance...

[jefferson_dem]

7. Nice one! Hillary didn't just vote for the IWR, she was beating her own fucking set of war drums...

You know about her speech on the senate floor during the lead-up, right? You know about her continual war promoting and capitulations to chimpy even after it was pretty damn clear we screwed up, right? Was/Is she also a "liar" and a "warmonger" or perhaps she was just "misinformed"?

[papau]

19. below is the Oct 10, 2002 floor speech you reference - what do you object to in that speech beyond

decision to vote "yes" on giving Bush "bargaining power" against Saddam - and the foolishness in trusting a president to put the country - America - first.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_.html

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

As Delivered

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that 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, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, 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. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

So, Mr. President, the question is how do we do our best to both defuse the real threat that Saddam Hussein poses to his people, to the region, including Israel, to the United States, to the world, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations?

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.

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.

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.

President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.

This is a very difficult vote. 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.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.

And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.

Thank you, Mr. President.

[jefferson_dem]

30. Ah...so it was the "Give Chimpy Bargaining Power" Resolution?

I've read the speech many times. There's plenty in it to quarrel with -- plenty of harsh, and downright flawed, characterizations of Saddam's capabilities, similar to what we heard from Colin at the UN.

At the *very least* it was poor judgment on Hillary's part. She references intelligence reports but we know she didn't read them all, and didn't listen to other respected figures (such as Sen Graham) who were sounding alarms. In my view, Hillary was more interested in establishing her foreign policy / national bonifides than she was in doing what was "right." Unforgivable.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. The IWR delayed the war

There were not enough votes to pass Biden-Lugar. Without the IWR, there would have been an even harsher resolution. The IWR was a last-gasp effort to salvage peace. Sure, it sucked. Sure, it had a 2% chance of working. What would the alternative have been, though? Allow a resolution that didn't even suggest diplomacy and allowed for an immediate war to pass?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

22. Let's imagine a world in which HRC voted against the IWR

The story is, if only HRC, and her merry band of fellow traitors (Edwards, Kerry, Dodd, and Biden) voted against the IWR the world would have lived happily ever after. There would have been no Iraq war. What is the reality? If HRC voted against it nothing--I repeat nothing--would be different in Iraq. The vote would have been 76-24.

==Was/Is she also a "liar" and a "warmonger" or perhaps she was just "misinformed"?==

Colin Powell, unlike HRC, was in the administration. Powell was chosen to pimp the war, particularly at the UN, because he had a deep reservoir of credibility with Americans and much of the world at that time. Powell lent his immense political capital to promote the war; HRC was a bit player in the drama. In fact, she was irrelevant, as I pointed out earlier.

[Tellurian]

129. You are so accurate...

and a major point demonstrating what you're about. Truth and accuracy..

and I agree 100% with you. Powell used his 'political capital' to sell the war!

I think, he was forced to do so...not that I'm making up excuses for him. He did resign, shortly thereafter.

I'd like to see him under oath to really know how he was snagged into doing this to sell the War.

[MADem]

25. Everyone forgets what state HRC represents, too--the state where the WTC got knocked down

Hello??????? You're right about her vote not making a material difference, and I'll wager her constituents gave her more than a little input into the matter as well.

While "revisionist history" might make people feel good, I'll bet the polls in and around NY were overwhelmingly in favor of her YES vote at the time she made it.

She didn't just pull that out of her ass--she was reflecting the views of her constituency at the time.

And while I, and no doubt you and others, are certainly am fully aware that Saddam had nothing to do with 911, I had a helluva time convincing a lot of people around the time of that vote of that truth. With many of them, I flat out failed...and these were people of supposedly reasonable intelligence.

[NYCGirl]

34. I don't know about that. We had a million people marching in the streets in NYC

BEFORE the war to try to stop it.

[MADem]

140. All I can tell you is this--I was travelling between NYC and DC a lot during that period

and the number of "Saddam did it" morons that I encountered outweighed the "Duuuh--of course Iraq had nothing to do with it" crowd by about four to one.

And I'm not talking about mouth breathing nitwits, either. I'm talking about people with advanced degrees, people who actually read books on occasion and kept up with current events, on both sides of the political aisle, who simply could not believe that the government could or would manipulate intel for political purposes.

I sure as hell had little luck convincing them--marchers notwithstanding.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

36. Good post. 50% of people STILL believe Saddam was behind 9-11! nt

[NYCGirl]

38. Now you're just grasping at straws. NT

[jefferson_dem]

42. Totally desperate grab o' straw. Hillary = Ghouliani?

9-11, 9-11, 9-11... Bin Laden... Iraq... Bin Hussein...

[Tellurian]

130. Yes, there is a poll verifying your post..

[Captain_Nemo]

74. I am voting for the person who is a feminist, has not done anything sleazy in her campaign

and knows how to solve problems. I remember hearing about Obama's liberal voting record and I paused. I thought, "Well maybe..." then, I heard the "god talk" and then I read about Powell and now the memo.

I cannot trust this guy.

He is saying anything to get the evangelicals to vote for him (so did bush). He listens to a guy who, if he had spoken up about attacking Iraq and resigned on his principals we may not be in the mess we are in. (POWELL LIED TO THE UN!) And, Obama claims to run an ethical, top notch campaign and then does this move!

Colin Powell accepted a Jaguar from Bandar Bush and stayed Loyal to George W. Would you listen to him?

Ask yourself, if Hillary were listiening to Colin Powell what posts would you be posting right now.

I am looking for a problem solver not a messiah for president.

[jefferson_dem]

78. Think about this.

You are rationalizing your support for a candidate who voted FOR the invasion (Hillary)

while criticizing another who spoke out AGAINST the invasion (Obama)

because he met twice with someone who had the same position as the candidate you now say you support (Powell).

:shrug:

When Hillary's campaign is caught dabbling in sleaziness, will you abandon her?

[Captain_Nemo]

86. Did Obama vote no to the Iraq war?

[jefferson_dem]

90. Do you really not know? n/t

[Captain_Nemo]

105. No, I know. I just think its interesting that he can give people so much criticism over something

that he wasn't even there to vote on. This is a guy who back pedals on coal energy "quietly" so as not to upset his supporters. He talks God talk to embrace religious rightists.

And I'm supposed to assume he would have voted no? Funny.

[jefferson_dem]

115. "And I'm supposed to assume he would have voted no?"

Assume what you want...but the fact is he would have voted no...just as the record shows Hillary cast a big "rubber stamp for Chimpy" "YES"!

[Tellurian]

131. Not a bona-fied claim...seeing he wasn't there to vote..

too convenient to say anything he wants..At best he gets no points...Obama has no ethics and is not an honorable person!

[jefferson_dem]

141. Spoken like a true Blind Hillaryphile (say anything, do anything to win).

Baseless character smears in an effort to try to sink all other candidates down to her "bottom feeder" level.

Not. Going. To. Work.

People are smarter than you think. They know who to not trust -->

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLJ,GGLJ:2006-40,GGLJ:en&q=do+not+trust+hillary+clinton+

[Tellurian]

148. Why change the subject and call me names?

How about staying on task and discussing Obama like a mature adult?

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. The hero worship is amazing. Imagine if HRC was getting advice from Powell or Wolfowitz

This also shatters the Obama camp's worship at the altar of the IWR (the magic shield they hide behind to avoid discussing that fact that Obama has the same position on Iraq as HRC. Both want to keep an unknown number of troops in Iraq indefinitely for military operations. Their voting record is 99% identical since Obama joined the big leagues. And so on.). It is ludicrous for them to crucify those who voted for it in a 77-23 vote while saying nothing--nothing!--regarding Obama's ties to a man who actually made a huge difference in launching the war. It was Powell who convinced many in the US to support the war because his "credibility" was used to promote the war. Who can forget his blatant lies--including claiming that Iraq was an ally of Al-Qaeda--at the UN?

[Fearless]

8. Well...

Well if you were going to vote for Hillary anyways what difference does it make to you?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. The issue is Obama supporters

How can they excuse him getting in bed with a confirmed war criminal? Look, the demand for Obama was based on his charisma and his 2002 opposition to the war. The "unity" and "new politics" stuff came afterwards (yes, he wrote of that in his book but how many of the 20% who backed him--before he even said what he intended to do as prez--read the book? All 90% of them knew was that he had a great smile, made a great speech in 2004, and opposed the war in 2002). Obama supporters can't vilify HRC for voting the IWR while Obama is getting advice from a war criminal. Who is next? Kissinger or Wolfowitz?

[jefferson_dem]

33. Kissinger? Wolfowitz? Dude, that messed up.

You've lost it now.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Powell is almost as bad as Wolfowitz nt

[Captain_Nemo]

62. Try Condi. She's young, hip, smiles nice.

[Captain_Nemo]

64. I have free will. I listened to him. I liked him. His voting record is impeccable. I could be swayed

Those days are over. I can't trust him. And, I am sickened by people who ook and aah over him like he was a messiah and then dismiss this obviously unethical move on the part of his campaign.
Where are your ethics?

[sandnsea]

10. This won't help Edwards win n/t

[jefferson_dem]

13. Ah...the poster supports Fmr. Senator "Co-Sponsor"...

That explains the frustrated desperation...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. 2002 forever! Hey, did you know Obama wants to continue military operations indefinitely in Iraq?

You know, like the evil HRC! Why doesn't he ever mention this during debates and forums? ;)

It is odd, but also telling, that you NEVER see an Obama supporter here ever post his actual Iraq platform--although you do constantly hear visits to the altar of 2002's IWR.

[jefferson_dem]

37. You haven't been paying attention. Months ago, a fellow DUer was asking for supporters

to summarize their favorite candidates' positions on Iraq. I took a stab at summarizing Obama's.

A continued military presence around (and perhaps in) Iraq doesn't bother me. In fact, if we are serious about stability in the region, and our own national security, such a presence is absolutely critical.

Why did Hillary say her top priority would be to "Get out of Iraq" at the last debate when she knew full well that SHE is proposing we stick around there also?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

55. I probably didn't post here then...

HRC and Obama are two sides of the same coin on Iraq. It isn't surprising she is doing the same thing as BO. The difference, though, is Obama has fooled many anti-war people into thinking he is different than HRC on Iraq (The anti-war progressive wing of the party is well aware of HRC's stance on Iraq). In fact he isn't even HRC-lite on Iraq. He is HRC--minus experience.

[jefferson_dem]

71. How in the world can you claim he's no different on Iraq than Hillary?

The only Iraq "experience" he lacks in comparison to Hillary is "experience" voting for the invasion itself.

...His superior judgment on Iraq is just one of the many reasons why he will make a better president than she would have been.

[Tellurian]

132. I have to correct you on this..

No, she is not the same as Obama...show me anything where Hillary has embraced Obama's neoconic stand.

Her website:

http://clinton.senate.gov/issues/nationalsecurity/iraq/

[sandnsea]

43. Hey do you know Edwards repeats whatever Trippi tells him

Just like Dean did. That worked well.

[Ethelk2044]

14. Edwards were out there drumming up support for the War even

though he was on the committee and knew what other Senators knew. The spin in the news was a pack of lies.

[sandnsea]

9. Hillary led the war cry

And you've got problems with Obama?? :eyes:

[ElizabethDC]

11. Hillary led the war cry?!

Well, I wouldn't go that far! I think the president was the one leading the war cry. She wasn't even a co-sponsor or anything. She definitely supported it but . . . I don't really think of her as the face of the Iraq war. :eyes:

[sandnsea]

12. Where was Bill?

Was he out there refuting the lies?? I must have missed it.

[ElizabethDC]

16. Ok, first of all, we were talking about Hillary.

Second of all, Bill's not refuting the lies doesn't equal Hillary leading the war cry. I don't know how you came to that conclusion.

[sandnsea]

17. The Clintons supported all Bush said

Every time there was an opportunity to hold Bush accountable for the lies, there was someone from the Clinton Administration backing Bush up. They pushed for the IWR in the Dem Party so that Hillary could look tough on defense when she got ready to run for President. It was well known on DU at the time - I don't know where the sudden amnesia is coming from.

[ElizabethDC]

20. I'm aware that Bill and some of his advisers were supporting the war behind the scenes

but that still does not equate to Hillary leading the war cry.

Additionally, when it comes to holding Bush accountable for the lies, there weren't a whole lot of Senators or other politicians doing that in the lead up to the war and the vote, now were there?

[sandnsea]

39. Obama was

That's the point. How in the hell can the OP criticize Obama for talking to Colin Powell NOW, when he supports someone who had the intelligence access at the time - and led Democrats to believe the intelligence was there. I don't know how any Clinton supporter gets off criticizing Obama for much of anything. Bunch of hypocritical bullshit, right down the line.

[ElizabethDC]

45. He was in a different position than the rest of them, though he does deserve credit.

He absolutely deserves credit for speaking out against the war. However, IMO, it's really not comparable to those who were in Washington and had to make the decision (and most of whom made the *wrong* decision, obviously.

I, for one, have *not* been criticising Obama here. I don't have a problem with him speaking to Powell.

But I still don't know how Hillary was leading the war cry. I'm pretty sure *that* wasn't happening.

[sandnsea]

50. Well, she did

Frankly, George Bush could have given this speech.

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

[ElizabethDC]

53. This was delivered the day before the vote took place

she was hardly leading the war cry if she waited until the day before to give a speech - I'm guessing most Senators had made up their minds already.

And this, from the link you cited, hardly sounds like something George Bush would say:

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

. . .

Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

snip . . .
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.


Snip . . .
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.

[sandnsea]

70. Bush "will seek to avoid war"

That's what Bush was saying at the exact same time, that this was a vote for peace. He made a variety of statements along those lines.

"America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements."

"I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace."


We could play who said it -

"Saddam Hussein must disarm himself -- or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him."

"And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed"

And then there's this in late 2003, making it pretty difficult to run an anti-war campaign in 2004:

"We must stay the course” in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and asked for more troops to finish the job.
“We have to exert all of our efforts militarily”

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. "it's really not comparable to those who were in Washington and had to make the decision"

Didn't Obama himself make a similar statement in 2004 when asked about Kerry and Edwards IWR votes?

[ElizabethDC]

57. Yeah, I believe he said he didn't know how he would have voted had he been in the Senate

had he been there. But I'm don't know the exact quote.

Clearly, a lot of intelligent, well-intentioned people voted for the war. It's hard to get inside the mind of the people who have to make those decisions - you never know what the different factors at work are.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

58. Damn. So on the sacred IWR he didn't know what he would have done if he had intelligence?

Let's remember the IWR is a centerpiece of the case for Obama...

[NYCGirl]

59. He said that to avoid undermining the Kerry and Edwards in the middle of the

presidential campaign. It's called being a good Democrat.

[ElizabethDC]

21. Delete dupe

[NYCGirl]

15. I guess consulting with Powell is wrong, but hanging out with him is OK, then?

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell was having dinner Thursday in Aspen, Colo., with President Clinton and other friends when - in Powell's words - he "started hyperventilating a little and was feeling a little altitude sickness." So, as the Aspen Daily News reports, it was off to the hospital to be checked out (the same hospital, coincidentally, where Enron founder Ken Lay was pronounced dead this week).

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2006/07/colin_powell_im.html

[jefferson_dem]

23. Folks can flame away if they wish but i respect Colin Powell.

Of course, he fucked up royally by getting in bed with Chimpy and the neo-con death mob. That, he has to live with...and so do we.

Otherwise, he has always striked me as a man of sound reason and character.

[NYCGirl]

28. I have no problem with Powell's expertise and consulting with him. But the Clinton

folks around here do, I guess.

[ConsAreLiars]

44. Put "Colin Powell My Lai" into any search engine.

Do your own research, rather than relying on praise from the Corporate Media as a basis for your evaluation of Powell's character.

[Captain_Nemo]

128. It's a pretty big fuck up. IN fact, it cost him presidential hopes.

[BeyondGeography]

24. Powell was also Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff early in the Clinton Administration

but why let a little fact like that get in the way?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. He wasn't a war criminal then

How about mentioning that little fact? ;)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

29. That is troubling but not nearly as bad. Why?

There is a huge difference from having a war criminal shape your neophyte foreign affairs views and eating roast beef with the guy (although I think the Clintons should not be associating with war criminals!).

One of the telling things about this is that HRC would never need Colin Powell to tell her what to think about foreign affairs. This highlights the experience/inexperience factor and is overlooked in the Powell/Obama discussions.

[NYCGirl]

31. And how do you know that Clinton and Powell weren't talking shop? NT

[Tellurian]

133. I guess you've lost your way...

you don't know what you're trying to prove anymore..that was pre-election race.

sorry, I gave you more credit for honesty than what you exhibit today...

you are disingenuous at best, and in denial, backing a scum-bag at best!

Takes a strong person to walk into the light...apparently, you're not a person of strength...just a blind follower.

sorry, I misjudged you..thought you were strong..guess not!

[theoldman]

18. I see nothing wrong with getting advice from Colin Powell.

No one is perfect. I listen to everyone but that does not mean that I accept all of their advice. Powell has a lot more experience in life than Obama.

[Captain_Nemo]

68. Check out Charllie Rose, last night. Brzezinski, Scowcroft, Kissinger were on. Brzezinski

said that Colin should have resigned rather than go with a war he didnt beleive in. He implied that his credibility is now over. Hillary is not listening to him because he is a lackey. He was loyal to Bush.

[NYCGirl]

69. Scowcroft is advising Mitt Romney...I wonder if Romney will listen? NT

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18291108/

[Tellurian]

134. Romney is a complete and utter

A-hole.. we have holdings in MA...and people were relived when he left us..a total hypocrite and widely known as such!

[jefferson_dem]

72. Who is she listening to now? She listened to Lord Chimpy himself before...which is what got us

into this mess to begin with.

[Captain_Nemo]

84. POwell got us into this mess. He, Bush, Rumsfeld and Condi and Wolfowitz. Part of the Cabal.

[Nedsdag]

40. People like you are the reason I wouldn't vote

for Hillary under ANY circumstances.

Her supporters make it worse for those who would even consider looking at her.

[ElizabethDC]

46. You're not going to vote for her because you don't like what some of her supporteres say?

Hell, I could find reasons not to vote for any of the candidates if solely based on some of their supporters.

[LoZoccolo]

48. You are in sparse company.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3304826

[Captain_Nemo]

66. Explain that one? People who believe a candidate when they say they are running a

positive campaign and then do the opposite? And, then I feel negatively towards the candidate? That's bad?

[jefferson_dem]

73. I'm curious. You were considering supporting Obama...

and then these two things pushed you away from him and to Hillary's camp?

- A leaked memo to the NYT where Obama's campaign referred to Hillary with an Indian title that she once used in referring to herself.

- He is reported to have met with Colin Powell twice.

To each his own but, surely, those are two small potatoes when compared to the more meaty issue-personality differences among the candidates.

By the way, a belated "Welcome to DU!" :hi:

[Captain_Nemo]

75. At first I liked him. I believe that our political system does not favor women and children.

I am a feminist. I thought Obama was "new" new ideas, etc.
Then I heard an NPR show where he was talking about God. He peppered his speech with "His truth", etc.

I had a visceral reaction to it and it was negative. As a woman who understands that male dominated language and religion is detrimental to women and girls I was surprised. ie; how can you be "new" if your core beliefs are not new?

So I thought ok, he's going for the evangelical vote. (So did the republican party back in 1980 and they changed the plkatform and got Reagan elected.)

Then, I hear about Powell. Powell blew it on the Iraq war. He was a good soldier to Bush. He wanted to be president one day. Well, I'd say that dream is over for him. Where are Obama's principals on ethics. ask yourself, if he had refused to go the UN would we be in this war?

Then, I hear about this sleazy move with the memo. And, it is a sleazy move..."not attributable?" C'mon, Senator. Stand up for your information and ethics.

I have real problems with him.

We have a war that is costing us billions, we are losing soldiers and domestically women and girls are losing reproductive rights.

I have a hard time looking at Obama and thinking, "This guy is gonna do the right thing."

His ego is driving him. He needs to put the country first. I don't need a president to make me feel good. I need a president who can solve the problems.

Oh, one more thing, his quiet email foregoing his support of Coal? Could he have spoken up strongly for the planet???YEs, he could have. But he didn't.

[jefferson_dem]

80. Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers!

[Captain_Nemo]

87. Thanks for a civil response. Hillary supporters get a lot of flack.

:P

[illinoisprogressive]

41. powell has been advising many people of both parties. grow up.

you think there has to be some purity test or something/ all parties get advise from powell. this is the real world.
And if Hillary would get her tired old self out of the 90s and quit playing nasty and sneaky he would not have to show her he can play back.
in the real world people don't operate on some purity test. they talk to everyone of all ideologies.

[w4rma]

49. You "grow up". Powell gained his position through corruption. He doesn't get a pass just because

he's now advising a Democrat. His advice is likely poisonous corrupt advice.

[emilyg]

51. yes

can't trust Powell anymore.

[calteacherguy]

92. Grow up. Powell is an honorable and intelligent man who was misled

and made a tragic blunder. I'm glad Obama is communicating with people of such experience and insight.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

96. Powell is as big a war criminal as the rest of the Bush gang nt

[Captain_Nemo]

108. Right on!

[calteacherguy]

112. It's a shame when politics gets reduced to this scum-sucking level.

I know you want to unfairly smear Obama, but must you smear unfairly smear Powell as well? The man made mistakes, but he's no war criminal.

Pathetic. Supporters of candidates will sometimes stop at nothing.

[Captain_Nemo]

124. YEah, like sending non attributal memoes to press.

[calteacherguy]

111. I'll reserve that term for those who authorized Abu Gharib. nt

[w4rma]

122. Powell covered up atrocities in Vietnam and the Republicans paid him back by giving him power. (nt)

[TeamJordan23]

52. So I guess Bill Clinton hanging out with G.W. Bush is fine by you?

[Captain_Nemo]

63. No, it bothers me. He's not running for President. His wife, the feminist is! Go Hillary!

[zulchzulu]

76. Senator Clinton was licking Powell's boots when the war was starting

I can see how you are a fan.
:crazy:

As for Powell, he has apologized for his trusting the Bush administration when they handed him the phony evidence. Meanwhile, Senator Clinton and Edwards lapped it up like eager little puppies. Powell has the moral compass to apologize for his faltered reasoning and not listen to what he originally thought about the Iraqi war.

Should Powell's military knowledge of the World be ignored? Should his years in the military be considered irrelevant?

If I were Obama, I'd seek out knowledge and discussion with Powell and others. It's not like they are getting married or something...

[Captain_Nemo]

81. I have a visceral reactio to a candidate that claims they are moral and then act immorally. He is

not the messiah - yet, Obama supporters (in a nader-esque way) worship him.

Powell apologized?!?! all I am think now is 3,500 american soldiers dead.....and how many Iraqis?

Powell apologized. Oh, that makes things better.

Should his years in the Millitary be irrelevant: google: "Powell My Lai."

If I were Obama, I would put the country first and put my ego in the back seat. (And, I would trash all this stupid "God" talk.)

[NYCGirl]

83. So is it wrong for Bill Clinton to be friends with Powell? NT

[zulchzulu]

147. So no issue with Senator Clinton's hawkish talk and IWR vote?

"...all I am think now is 3,500 american soldiers dead.....and how many Iraqis?"

So no issue with your support for Clinton, who at least went along for the train now gone off the tracks for the war?

The hypocrisy is astounding in its ineptness.

[TeamJordan23]

79. Candidates receive advice from many people...doesn't mean they follow all of them!

As much as Powell was wrong about Iraq War, he is still a very knowledgeable man about foreign affairs. And I'm sure there are things that Dems agree with Powell on (like closing Gitmo, engaging with Iran and Syria).

Just because Obama is receiving advice from him (and I bet many others) about foreign affairs does not mean that Obama will ultimately listen and follow all his advice. Wouldn't you want your President (regardless of who it is) to receive various viewpoints and advice before ultimately making the decision.

Bill Clinton used Republicans for advice (Powell, David Gergen) and I think it was beneficial for his administration. If you want Dems to associate only with hardcore Dems, than you are no more different than George W.

[Captain_Nemo]

82. Colin eeded to stand up for principal - there were lives at stake. He didn't . He was loyal to chimp

[TeamJordan23]

85. I don't remember Hillary standing up for principal when military operations started in Iraq?

Do you?

[Captain_Nemo]

88. Colin was Secretary of State! If anyone needed to he did! Also, the details of the vote were not:

I vote yes to attack Iraq. She voted to allow him to attack if diplomacy didn't work first. He ignored it. So did Powell. They attacked.

[TeamJordan23]

95. Okay...so by your rational, she should have spoke up when they did attack. BUT SHE DIDN'T

I understand that he was Sec of State, but she is potentially our presidental nominee.

[jefferson_dem]

89. She was right alongside the chimp-in-chief, banging her own set of war drums...

I posted a video of her "dissing" code pink who showed up at her office and practically begged for her to stand firm...on principle. Guess she was too busy showing "strength" as she prepped for '08.

[rufus dog]

94. Deal with it

HRC supported the war because she knew it was the way to get reelected - She is a politician. FUCKING DEAL WITH IT!

Obama is talking to Powell, did Powell make mistakes, yes, HUGE! Does it get him elected to a higher office? MAYBE

Don't pull this holier than though bullshit! HRC may have been out maneuvered, DEAL WITH IT!

[Captain_Nemo]

98. Hmmm..holier than thou? Those are words for the candidate who had the conversion. NOt the feminist.

Deal with it. see your candidate as a whole person with flaws. He is not the "second coming."

[jefferson_dem]

118. Does the fact that he inspires offend you?

:shrug:

We should expect as much from our so-called leaders, eh.

[jefferson_dem]

117. Your crazed screaminess aside, we do agree on this ...

She is a "politician."

[Captain_Nemo]

101. The point of my post is Obama is not so ethical. The memo was my final proof on this.

[TeamJordan23]

103. So are you saying the Clintons (or others) don't do Opposition Research memos?

I'm sorry, but its always been a part of politics!

[calteacherguy]

91. Colin Powell is an honorable man who was misled and made a tragic blunder.

I'm glad Obama is seeking out his experience, opinions, and advice. I like how Obama listens and considers the views of others.

[snowbear]

97. I am too Cal... it's a polticially savvy move.

And during the campaigns, that's what it's all about.

I also like that he has consulted with General Clark a couple of times now too!

[Captain_Nemo]

99. If Hilary was talking to Colin I think the threads would be all over it. I am surprised to see Barac

supporters giving Colin a pass. INteresting.

[calteacherguy]

113. Colin Powell is someone who SHOULD be consulted with.

There are lots of people with experience that should be consulted by any real leader!

BTW: I'm neither an Obama nor Clinton supporter. I don't know who I will vote for in the primary.

[Captain_Nemo]

100. With colin's advice I guess we;ll be in Iran next. think of the soldiers, Cal.

[TeamJordan23]

104. And we will also know what Hillary's vote for an impeding Iran War would be, right? nt

[Captain_Nemo]

106. I thought we were talking about Obama listening to a man who lied about going to war. KNOWINGLY!

[calteacherguy]

114. You have no proof of that.

But you want it to be so to tear down the rival to your chosen one.

As I said upthread, pathetic.

[Captain_Nemo]

107. P.S. The point here is that Obama may not be that much different from the other candidates. Vote

with your mind wide open.

[TeamJordan23]

109. Obama is Different. Spoke out against the IWR, while your candidate stayed Silent when Miltary...

Actions started. This is the biggest isssue (and blunder) of my generation. Do not try to put Obama in the class of Hillary on the war and her vote in favor of it.

[jefferson_dem]

121. She didn't stay silent. She was a vocal proponent of Chimpy's invasion...

while Obama was speaking out in opposition. Now that the tide has changed, and the war is unpopular, she tries to change her stripes. Sneaky little snake...

[Captain_Nemo]

127. And colin is spineless and Obama is an egomaniac. Great combo.

[jefferson_dem]

142. Hillary's ever-evolving political calculations on the War in Iraq...

Does she make you proud?

• October 10, 2002. Mrs. Clinton addresses the Senate on the use-of-force resolution. "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt," she declares, citing Saddam's record of using chemical weapons, the invasion of Kuwait, and his history of deceiving U.N. weapons inspectors. "As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets," she continues, adding that Saddam "has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members."

While she expresses her preference for working through the U.N. if possible, she adds, "I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 U.N. resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

• December 15, 2003. It is clear by now that no large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq. But Mrs. Clinton tells the Council on Foreign Relations that "Yesterday was a good day. I was thrilled that Saddam Hussein had finally been captured. . . . We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the President, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam. Now he will be brought to justice."

She adds, "I was one who supported giving President Bush the authority, if necessary, to use force against Saddam Hussein. I believe that that was the right vote." As for Iraq's prospects, she declares herself "a little optimistic and a little pessimistic . . . We have no option but to stay involved and committed."

• April 20, 2004. Mrs. Clinton tells Larry King: "I don't regret giving the President the authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade." Asked whether she thinks she was "fooled," she replies: "The consensus was the same, from the Clinton Administration to the Bush Administration. It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared about the weapons of mass destruction."

• October 2005. Antiwar fervor on the left is picking up, and activist Cindy Sheehan compares her to Rush Limbaugh after Mrs. Clinton tells the Village Voice: "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. . . . I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal . . . I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

• November 2005. Mrs. Clinton posts a letter to constituents that marks her first dovish turn. "If Congress had been asked , based on what we know now, we never would have agreed," she writes. But invoking retired General Eric Shinseki's estimate of more American troops necessary to pacify Iraq, she demands not withdrawal but a new plan: "It is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor--not a rigid timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning and concluding the war."

• August 3, 2006. Mrs. Clinton calls for Donald Rumsfeld to resign as Defense Secretary, asking for "new leadership that would give us a fighting chance to turn the situation around before it's too late."

• December 18, 2006. Her march left gains speed. On NBC's "Today" show, Mrs. Clinton renounces her war vote unequivocally for the first time: "I certainly wouldn't have voted that way."

• January 13, 2007. From Baghdad, Mrs. Clinton responds to Mr. Bush's plan to send more troops to Iraq to secure Baghdad: "I don't know that the American people or the Congress at this point believe this mission can work. And in the absence of a commitment that is backed up by actions from the Iraqi government, why should we believe it?"

• January 17, 2007. Mrs. Clinton calls for capping the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, saying she will introduce legislation to do so. And while she says she won't block money for the troops, she suggests withholding funds for the Iraqi government. It is precisely such a funds cut-off to the South Vietnamese government in 1975 that led to the final U.S. flight from Saigon.

• January 27, 2007. On the campaign trail in Iowa, Mrs. Clinton demands that President Bush "extricate our country from this before he leaves office." And she promises that, if elected, she will end the war quickly.

All politicians change their minds about something at some point, but what's troubling about Mrs. Clinton's record on Iraq is that it tends to follow, rather than lead, public opinion. When the war was first debated, and she couldn't easily walk away from her husband's record against Saddam, she was a solid, even eloquent, hawk. Then for a time she laid low and avoided the antiwar excesses of John Kerry and others.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009637

[Captain_Nemo]

125. He is no different. His ego is driving him. Its time to put the country first.

[Captain_Nemo]

149. Wow, now there's a reason to put the whole country under the leadership of this man!

[Mutineer]

116. This is why I don't make the mistake anymore of making politicans

my heroes. They're human. And they are politicans. It's a rough and tumble world and only the strongest survive. Sad to say but you play dirty or you don't win.

[William769]

120. Obama and sleazy now theres two words that fir together perfectly! NT

[Tellurian]

135. Mussen't forget, HYPOCRITE!

street talk...."dirtbag"!

[Name removed]

136. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TeamJordan23]

139. Also, you can't forget the Clintons being quiet when military attacks started in Iraq

or Hillary saying "Stay The Course"

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintIon.htm

[blm]

143. Kerry, Dean and Clark were calling for Rumsfeld to go and Clintons wouldn't back them up

and sided with Bush on that - just as they did when Bush invaded Iraq and even before that when they wouldn't back up Kerry's attack on Bush for blowing Tora Bora.

[FreeStateDemocrat]

145. Has Obama stated whether or not Powell would be offered a policy position if Obama is elected?

Just wondering, historically advisers during campaigns become part of the administration when the candidate is elected. I, most emphatically, am not a Hillary supporter.

[NYCGirl]

146. Only in the fevered minds of a few DUers. NT

[draft_mario_cuomo]

151. What better. cheap, easy way to further his "unity" agenda than appoint Powell to a high position?

That would in a quick, easy, single stroke generate considerable goodwill with repukes, who Obama needs to achieve "unity."