What DOES Hilary know now that she didn't know then?

[rgbecker]

I'm not going to be able to get to any of Hilary's town meetings anytime soon so I hope someone out there will ask her a few questions that have been working on me. Namely, its about this Iraq war thing and the vote to let Bush/Cheney do anything they can dream up. You know, the vote in the Senate for the resolution about Weapons of Mass destruction and Terrorists in Iraq and the security of the United States and using the Armed Forces to protect our Security and enforcing the United Nation's resolutions about Iraq and Kuwait...That one. Which I guess is the one everyone means when they say only the Congress can declare war and so on...

So Hilary, is it that you know now that it was all baloney that the Iraqis had WMDs? I mean, say if a country DID have WMDs would you, if you had a chance, vote to use the Armed Forces to invade a sovereign country, capture or kill the leaders, blow their entire infrastructure to smithereens, kill any civilians that happen to get in the way and spend billions hiring who knows who to stroll around the landscape killing or detaining anybody of military age for looking at our guys crossed eyed? Like say North Korea or Iran or Russia or....?

Or Hilary, is it that now you know that maybe Iraq didn't have any connection with terrorists involved with the 9/11 attacks? Does that mean you would use the Armed Forces to invade a sovereign country that DID happen to have a few Radical Muslims sitting in their basements plotting and scheming against the USA? Like say _______________(Fill in any country name you like)....?

Maybe Hilary, you know now that its a fact that the Iraqis never showed up with the flowers, wildly welcoming our troops and singing the praises of Christian America saving them from the evil doing Baathists. Does that mean you'd be happy to invade any country where the people ARE just waiting to be set free? (Please tell us how you will determine that). Like Korea, Cuba, Mexico...?

But Hilary, NOW that you know that the Armed Forces are not good for anything other than Killing and Blowing things up, (and getting killed and blown up)? (If you spent just 8 weeks in the Army you'd) know that), what exactly would you vote to use them for? Venezuela?

Hilary, If you wouldn't have voted for that resolution, that Declaration of War, now that you know what you know, would you vote to rescind that resolution? Where are you Hilary, on this War vs. Peace issue?

[Bitwit1234]

1. Could be the same thing that the rest of the democrats

that voted for bush to invade Iraq thought. Have you heard any of the other democrats coming out yet to set a date to bring the troops home. I know that Murtha does but I really haven't seen anybody other than him and Hillary say they want to set a date.

[rgbecker]

2. Kucinich? n/t

[Tellurian]

10. The Clinton Plan to End the War..

This plan is unique to Senator Clinton..and constructed and detailed after her first hand visit to Iraq..

February 17, 2007

Clinton Plan to End War: Reject the President's Escalation;

Protect U.S. Troops in Iraq; Begin Redeploying Our Troops; Enables President to End War Before Leaving Office

Introduces the Iraq Troop Reduction & Protection Act of 2007

WASHINGTON, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton renewed her call on President Bush to reverse course and endorse the plan she outlined several weeks ago that would cap the level of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number prior to his escalation plan, and begin the long overdue phased redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq beginning in 90 days. Senator Clinton outlined her plan when she returned last month from her third trip to Iraq and is formally introduced the legislation yesterday.

"I came back from Iraq more determined then ever to stop the President's escalation of troops into Iraq, and to start the long overdue redeployment of troops out of Iraq," Senator Clinton said. "The Iraq Troop Protection and Reduction Act that I proposed last month and introduced this week caps the number of troops in Iraq at the level before the President's escalation. It would be against the law to send more. The legislation also protects our troops who are performing so heroically, by making sure they aren't sent to Iraq without the body armor and training they need - empty promises from the President just aren't enough anymore. And it calls for the phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. I've been pushing for this for almost two years. Now it's time to say the redeployment should start in ninety days or we will revoke authorization for this war. This plan is a roadmap out of Iraq. I hope the President takes this road. If he does, he should be able to end the war before he leaves office."

The Iraq Troop Protection & Reduction Act of 2007 presents a comprehensive approach to Iraq that halts the President's escalation policy and provides an alternative strategy in Iraq with the goal of stabilizing the country so American troops can redeploy out of Iraq. Senator Clinton's legislation puts real pressure on the Iraqi government, requiring the Iraqis to make political progress or lose funding for their military and reconstruction, require the Bush Administration to begin a phased redeployment and convene an international conference within 90 days or a new Congressional authorization would be required to remain in Iraq. Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training. If the President were to follow the provisions in this legislation then the United States should be able to complete a redeployment of troops out of Iraq by the end of his term.

A Summary of the legislation:

STOPPING THE PRESIDENT'S ESCALATION OF THE WAR: This legislation would cap U.S. troop numbers in Iraq at the January 1, 2007 level - prior to the announcement of the troop escalation by President Bush. It would require Congressional authorization to exceed the cap.

ENDING THE BLANK CHECK FOR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT: Recent press reports have indicated that U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces may be infiltrated by Iraqi militias and thus U.S. funds may have been used to train the very people that our men and women in uniform are fighting. In order to exert leverage on the Iraqi government, the legislation would cut off funds for Iraqi security forces, including private contractors as well as reconstruction funds within 90 days unless the President certifies that the Iraqi government has met certain conditions. The legislation would require that the Iraqi government meet a number of conditions, including:

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are free of sectarian and militia influences;

• The security forces of the Government of Iraq are assuming greater responsibility for security in Iraq;

• The government of Iraq provides for an equitable distribution of the oil revenues of Iraq;

• There has been significant progress made in political accommodation among the ethnic and sectarian groups in Iraq.

If Congress disagrees with the President's certification, Congress would have 60 days to "disapprove" of the Presidential certification resulting in a cutoff of funds for the Iraqi government.

STARTING PHASED REDEPLOYMENT AND INVOLVING COUNTRIES IN THE REGION IN THE FUTURE OF IRAQ: The legislation requires the U.S. begin a phased redeployment of U.S. troops in 90 days or the authority of the use of force would cease. Specifically it requires that a phased redeployment of United States military forces from Iraq has begun including the transition of United States forces in Iraq to the limited presence and mission of:

• Training Iraqi security forces;

• Providing logistic support of Iraqi security forces;

• Protecting United States personnel and infrastructure; and

• Participating in targeted counter-terrorism activities.

The legislation also requires that the United States has convened or is convening an international conference so as to:

• More actively involve the international community and Iraq's neighbors;

• Promote a durable political settlement among Iraqis;

• Reduce regional interference in the internal affairs of Iraq;

• Encourage more countries to contribute to the extensive needs in Iraq; and

• Ensure that funds pledged for Iraq are forthcoming.

PROTECTING OUR TROOPS SENT INTO IRAQ: The legislation would prohibit funds from being spent to send troops to Iraq unless the Secretary of Defense certifies to Congress that the troops being deployed are adequately equipped and trained for their mission in Iraq.

Statements and Remarks by Senator Clinton Concerning the War in Iraq:

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

...any more information you need is answered on her website

[sandnsea]

3. Feingold, Kerry

and the 13 Democrats that voted for Kerry-Feingold last year. Daniel Akaka, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, Russell Feingold, Tom Harkin, Daniel Inouye, Edward Kennedy, John Kerry, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Robert Menéndez, Ron Wyden, and James Jeffords.

Hillary is way way late to setting a date, as usual.

[Windy]

25. It wouldn't have been the Politically Correct thing to do then

Now it is.

[Tellurian]

30. When you're being told the Security of your Country is at stake..

and USING someone of the caliber of Ambassador Wilson to back your claim in the State of the Union Address..The US is in danger of an attack of WMD.. The Bush LIE being addressed in the Libby Trial as we speak...I think the wording of Senator Clinton's statement is based on Truthful statements from the President. In US History, I don't believe ANY president has communicated a LIE of this magnitude with the end result...so many LIVES taken and lost!


GO HILLARY!

[Windy]

47. Quit making excuses for her. Not everyone was fooled!

As I said in another post, there were senators that DID NOT vote for the IWR. From one of Ms. clinton's recent floor statements, she appears to be buying the new Iran propaganda too.. even though the Sunnis, funded by Saudi Arabia and other arab states are behind the majority of the deaths of our troops!

And by the way, the administration didn't use Wilson. Wilson had said that the Iraq was NOT trying to secure yellowcake from Africa. That's why they discredited him!

Because they couldn't get what they wanted from Wilson, they went to Tony Blair to back up statements made in the state of the union before the invasion. Of course the Brit intel was questionable from the minute it was relied upon and was reported by the Brit newspapers and the BBC.

[Tellurian]

51. Provide the link; if you will..

[Windy]

65. I could go on and on...but I am working at home today and this is too distracting, for your perusal

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/6/20815/70687
http://www.observer.com/20060724/20060724_Jason_Horowitz_pageone_coverstory1.asp

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/02/hillary200702

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/13239511/the_low_post_hillary_gets_off_to_a_smashing_start/print

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/story?section=politics&id=4991430


https://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=9

[Zhade]

103. Nice smackdown. I'm fucking sick of people rewriting history.

NT!

[Zhade]

102. Not only that, her plan (besides punishing the Iraqis for OUR destabilization), has a huge loophole.

"the plan she outlined several weeks ago...would cap the level of U.S. troops in Iraq at the number prior to his escalation plan."

BUT

"Finally, the legislation would prohibit the use of funds to send troops to Iraq unless they have the proper equipment and training."

So her plan really doesn't cap troop levels at all. That claim is an outright fabrication. A more honest statement would be "it caps level until more soldiers are trained and armed for combat."

[Windy]

70. Obama has... March of 2008.

[emulatorloo]

89. Kerry has www.setadate.com for example and has been advocating setting a date for a while now n/t

[Zhade]

116. And Clinton's plan DOESN'T cap troop levels. See above.

NT!

[Tellurian]

4. Here is Senator Clinton's IRW statement:

Granting Limited Authority for the Iraq War:

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.

...don't forget to mention why you think an apology is needed here..Because, I don't belive ANY apology is necessary..

[rgbecker]

Seems she gets the signing statement thing pretty well....

Very helpful to see what she really wanted when she voted to go to war...Is that sort of like W knowing he really intends to torture anyone he or his henchmen wants, and saying so, while signing a bill that clearly prohibits it?

[Tellurian]

31. Only the President has the power of signing statements..

and yes, your assumption is dead wrong!

GO HILLARY!

[JackRiddler]

99. The president does NOT have the power of "signing statements" ---

This is a fabrication of the Bush regime. Signing statements (insofar as they declare an executive privilege to violate an act of Congress) are an attack on the US Constitution.

It doesn't surprise me that a resident partisan of Hillary Clinton, the would-be Empress, is the one to make such an egregious mistake.

[tomp]

26. hillary connects iraq with 9/11

"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."

[Tellurian]

33. Sen Clinton has been an advocate for Health Care and funding for the First Responders ...

and Fire Fighters in NY..getting State and Federal funding to take up the cost for their exorbitant medical expenses.

[Malikshah]

84. Good for her on first-responders. Still doesn't address the connection

of Iraq 9/11-- that is the issue of the post and she must be taken to task for this.

Shameful use of a national tragedy to link the two however circuitously.

[JackRiddler]

100. Are you from New York?

If so, did you vote for HRC in 2000, 2006 or both?

[Zhade]

105. Great. That doesn't explain the LIE that Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

NT!

[Alamom]

118. No, she does not.

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




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.

[bvar22]

91. Hillary said she was AGAINST the WAR,

before she voted FOR it.

[napi21]

5. Go to her web site and read her recent speeches. They answer

almost all your questions.

[robinlynne]

6. how to get votes...

[Skink]

7. She believed the classified info Cheney was forcefeeding them behind closed doors.

Even Colin Powell fell for it.

[Warpy]

8. She knows now it's useless to put conditions upon this

administration, that they'll take war as a last resort after conditions have been met as war right now, no strings attached.

She knows they had no intention of letting the UN inspectors finish their job and write that report. She knows they had no intention of building a real alliance. She knows they had no intention of getting UN support.

In other words, she knows they are a ruthless, lying pack of criminals who would be impeached, tried, removed from office and thrown into prison for war crimes in a rational world.

[Tellurian]

13. Yes, and all you say, still wasn't enough of a deterrent? Was it?

Gives Hillary more than an incentive to make things right again...imho

[Warpy]

27. You'd think she'd know enough to want him removed from office

at the very least, but she's too busy triangulating and trying to please the wrong people to bother working on it.

[Tellurian]

41. I'm sure she does...and why I'm glad she's running..

You do realize we're still in the exploratory stages. Right-
As time goes on, ALL the candidates will firm up their platforms.

You will see the manner of our candidate's rhetoric become more specific
and decidedly deadly against Republicans and the damage they've done,
enabling the WORST president in US History running roughshod over the World.

GO HILLARY!

[Zhade]

107. See above - her 'plan' to cap troops doesn't even do that.

Sounds nice, but not true.

[Little Wing]

9. Anyone unable to see Bush as a lying bullshitter is unfit to be President

[Tellurian]

11. Why didn't YOU provide proof of your statement to the Senate?

before the vote..so, that makes you as complicit as Bush, then..

Or are you hiding more of what you knew?

[Windy]

14. That is precisely what we elect our representatives for

Hillary has no excuse. Others saw through it, why didn't she. There was no unanimous vote on the IWR.

I want to know what her stance on pre-emptive war is. She has never clarified that position and it is critical in light of the dangerous times we live in which were created by Bush and those who blindly followed him with their jack boots on and an rubber stamp in their hands.

[Tellurian]

18. You'll have to bother yourself to read my first post..

Her IRW statement..


GO HILLARY!

[Windy]

24. I did read it. Its again a nuanced answer

she waited for focus groups and her handlers to craft her statment. She is not genuine.
There are sheep on both sides of the aisle. Try not to be a follower.

[Tellurian]

43. What focus groups and what handlers..

provide a link to your statements.

[Windy]

55. Look at her campaign staff

Terry McCullife... James Carville, Paul Begalla...
Focus groups are a tactic that is used by politcal campaigns to supposedly gage the people so that policy can be crafted.

have you ever worked on a campaign?

A lot of politicians use focus groups to test issues.

She and McCain adjust their "policies" based upon what "sells" rather than what they believe.

[Tellurian]

72. AND?......

GO HILLARY!

[Tellurian]

62. There was a majority vote most of whom specified WAR as a last resort..

You know it as well.

Her stance is written in her Iraq Resolution here:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783

You can read it here or go to post #10..

No matter how you choose to cast her in a bad light; it just doesn't stick, does it?


GO HILLARY!

[Little Wing]

15. Nice try

:eyes:

[Tellurian]

19. Just remember, when you start pointing fingers at people..

you have 3 fingers pointing back at yourself..


GO HILLARY!

[Little Wing]

21. HIllary's a Senator, a public representative, she's SUPPOSED TO HAVE

FINGERS POINTED AT HER

[Tellurian]

39. Really- a Right Wing tactic is pointing fingers offering NO solutions..

[Little Wing]

49. The solution is get Hillary out of the race - she's part of the problem!

[Tellurian]

54. ONLY if you are a REPUBLICAN!

if they don't want her in the WH...it's because she will take them to task!

GO HILLARY!

[Windy]

57. The republicans want her to run AND win the primary. She is devisive

She will help the right in promoting whoever their candidate is as the alternative to Hillary. Why did Murdoch donate to her campaign? She will not offer resistence to the neocons.

Big business/ergo the media want her to win the primary. More interesting..and she is a corporatist.

[Tellurian]

71. If she wasn't a formidable threat, they wouldn't be concerned..

and they wouldn't be lining up their BIG Guns to smear her candidacy..

You can read about the FEAR here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-hillary18feb18,0,6942519.story?track=mostviewed-homepage


GO HILLARY!

[Windy]

52. You sound just like the Right wing!!!

No one else has a plan....

I believe that each of our candidates have a plan. You may want to read them all!

[Tellurian]

74. Can you provide the differences between the candidates here?

If they do...please show me their new and improved plan and the difference with hers..

GO HILLARY!

[Windy]

12. Agreed. she is bush light

She is nothing more than an opportunist, loves lobbyists who line her campaign coffers and constitutes more of the same in Washington. Time for fresh faces.

[Tellurian]

16. What is Bush lite? Do you even know?

A fresh face won't effect a cure for the damage done to the country..
we don't have time for a president in training program..

After the restoration of the country...I may agree with you... for now, experience and expedience is KEY!

[Clark2008]

20. Um - a governor or a head of state has more experience

being president than a senator.

So, to that, I agree: we don't have time for a president-in-training program: no senators.

[Tellurian]

34. I belive having a live in former President, TRUMPS All..

I'm glad you see my point..

[Windy]

66. That's pitiful.

really... I'm done bantering with you.

[Tellurian]

75. Why live in PITY..

President Clinton is one of the greatest Presidents in US History.

Do you have a problem with that?


GO HILLARY!

[Clark2008]

97. No - it doesn't.

My husband is in the insurance industry and, while I know more than most, I still don't know enough to just jump in.

So, your point WASN'T made. Sorry.

[Nedsdag]

119. WTF?

That doesn't make any sense.

Not at all.

But then again, some people like two families running a country for 36 years if she wins.

Get ready for Jeb '16 or maybe George P. '12.

[Zhade]

108. Indeed.

NT!

[Windy]

23. What real "experience" does she have?

she was first lady... she hasn't been in the senate long. I'll give you this, she is very experienced in "politics". She can BS with the best of them and has good handlers! My god, she still can't admit that voting for the IWR was a mistake. She is just more of the same. I'm so tired of a political machine being in power. We need fresh ideas, intelligence, thoughtfullness and a non-devisive candidate. We've had too many years of devision in our country which has left us where we are. She is really no better than John McCain. She doesn't want the office because of what she can do for the country. In listening to her and reading her website, and following her over the years, she's in it for the power. I wish we had someone else running as our first female candidate for president.

I'm hoping that person will emerge from the democratic party in the debates. Hillary is NOT it in my opinion. I don't believe she will get the nomination.

[Tellurian]

35. I'm against her saying her vote was a mistake..

I read her IRW statement..
I don't see the urgency of calling it a mistake.

Not when you've been duped by a LIE made by the President-

Hillary IS the most qualified of ALL the candidates..

[Windy]

58. She is absolutely not the most qualified.

Chris Dodd is more qualified, Vilsack and Richardson are more qualified if "experience" is your only criterion, then for that reason alone, you are supporting the wrong candidate!
Putting her questionable ideology and strange bedfellows aside.

[Tellurian]

76. How so?

They are all Senators... I think Hillary will do a brilliant job..

It would be a wise choice to give her that chance!

GO HILLARY!

[Laurab]

92. She'll do a "brilliant job" getting the republic vote out

that's one thing I'm sure of. Other than that, I've seen nothing from her that makes me think she'll do a "brilliant job". She's an average senator (mine), who will get out the republican vote like no other candidate. They don't FEAR her, they WANT her to run.

I love Bill Clinton, I have nothing against Hillary, really, but I'm not at all impressed by her, either. I do know that the right thinks of her EXACTLY as we think of *, even though it's not deserved.

It would be a wise choice to choose a candidate who will not be a great "get out the vote" candidate for the repukes. The next election is far too important.

[RiverStone]

117. Hillary knew she was wrong - too arrogant to admit it...

Well Tellurian, I do admire your passion for fighting for the candidate of your choice.

Then I'm sure you will understand that I will ALWAYS see Hillary as putting political expediency above her personal convictions on the IWR. I believe like 23 other senators, 133 other Reps, and millions in protest around the world in Oct of 02 she KNEW that Shrub was going to take us into an immoral war of aggression; yet she chose what she felt made the most "political sense."

And trying to justify or make excuses for her feels like arguing about religion. It is a circular argument with no end. Some of us don't get how anybody as bright as her, could have done something so damn stupid. And I believe by not admitting any culpability, she adds to a perception of arrogance.

I'm gonna vigorously argue for any candidate that was against the IWR from the get-go. Obama, Clark, Kucinich, Feingold----GORE!

Though if after we slog our way through the primaries - she's the nominee - I'll reluctantly vote for her. Cause there lies our common ground - I'd even put DLC/Corporate connected Hillary above any rethug.

By default I'd vote for her as our nominee---but I sure as hell hope I'm not given that choice!

[ElizabethDC]

104. As for experience

she's been in the Senate longer than either of the other two top contenders (three times as long as Obama, though only slightly longer than Edwards). I personally think her experience as first lady is invaluable - she was effectively the President's top adviser for 8 years, and she knows better than anyone else what it takes to do the job.

[LostinVA]

93. She is far, far from "Bush Lite"

Senator Clinton is a social liberal, and that alone makes her anything but "Bush lite."

[JackRiddler]

101. Actually, she's closer to Bush heavy...

As far as the world's majorities are concerned.

[cooolandrew]

17. I had the exact same thought the other day she knew then more than anyone because of Bill

[Tellurian]

22. And precisely why she and Kerry carefully worded their statements as is..

GO HILLARY!

[lumpy]

28. Hillary's speech was for the Senate records. Do you think

the bulk of US voters even bothered to read her long winded statement? Why is it that millions of people the world over went to the streets marching against Bush's agenda knowing full well that Bush would invade Iraq? Why is it that most DU'ers were vehemently against Bush's pusch and saw his propaganda for what it was? What was wrong with so many people in Congress that they couldn't see the hand writing on the wall while so many of us plebs had no problem striding through the administration smoke screen of lies? Maybe that is because many plebs bother to seek the truth and can make decisions based on common sense without being concerned about the next election. No way can I vote to replace one fumbling politician with another.

[Tellurian]

36. If they haven read ANY Senator's IRW statement..

Then they have no one to blame but themselves..

So, how can you tell me 3 lines down that the "plebs" as you say sought the Truth..

You're just blowin smoke just to hear the sound of your own voice!

No one can believe a word you say!

[lumpy]

40. I believe TahitiNut (post 29) can educate you better

than I can. There are politicians who were a voice for the millions who marched in the streets against Bush's War. By the way,insults will not help Hillary's cause, smoke gets in your eyes.

[Tellurian]

44. A just criticism is not an insult..

your post was wide eyed pie in the sky..afaic..

[lumpy]

53. Amazing how many wide eyed people there are

in this world, people with their eyes wide open and their ears to the ground.

[Windy]

67. Thank you!

[TahitiNut]

29. Even Lincoln Chafee knew better.

The following 23 Senators voted AGAINST the "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" - because they KNEW it was an abomination. Hillary has not yet given any satisfactory indication that she's learned a damned thing.


* Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
* Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
* Robert Byrd (D-WV)
* Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
* Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
* Kent Conrad (D-ND)
* Mark Dayton (D-MN)
* Dick Durbin (D-IL)
* Russ Feingold (D-WI)
* Bob Graham (D-FL)
* Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
* Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
* Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
* Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
* Carl Levin (D-MI)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
* Patty Murray (D-WA)
* Jack Reed (D-RI)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
* Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
* Ron Wyden (D-OR)

[Tellurian]

37. You're WRONG...He voted on family driven principle..

His father historically voted against war..and he did it strictly as a traditionalist!

[lumpy]

42. Hahahahahaha, some argument !

Family driven principles, a traditionalist, Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Tellurian]

46. I know his family personaly..

and I knew his father...laugh if you want to, but have the guts to look up his father's record.

They were both my Senators!

GO HILLARY!

[Zhade]

110. Sure. You have personal knowledge that wins the argument.

:rofl:

Even if it WERE true, which we have no way of knowing, it's not evidence that supports your argument, precisely because we have no way of knowing.

Try again.

[Zhade]

109. "He voted on family driven principle.." - prove it.

I mean, if you don't want to be a hypocrite for demanding the same of others.

[Windy]

68. Enough said!

Mrs. Clinton is behind on taking a leadership role. She doesn't deserve our vote as president. I truly think that the debates will tell the tale and will sink her ship. Too bad Barbara Boxer didn't want to throw her hat in.

[Tellurian]

77. I'll hold you to that challenge.. You want to be WINDY?

If she kicks Ass; she gets your vote!

Ready to put your VOTE where your mouth is?

GO HILLARY!

[bonito]

32. This is where her sympathies lie her own words

"ur future here in this country is intertwined with the future of Israel and the Middle East. Now there is a lot that we could talk about, and obviously much has been discussed. But in the short period that I have been given the honor of addressing you, I want to start by focusing on our deep and lasting bonds between the United States and Israel."

Clinton went on to address the importance of disarming Iran and Syria, as well as keeping troops in Iraq for as long as "it" takes. It was textbook warmongering, and surprise, surprise – Hillary got a standing ovation for her repertoire.
The senator's comments seem as if they were taken word-for-word from an AIPAC position paper. They may well have been, as the lobby packs her coffers full of cash. In May 2005, Clinton spoke at an AIPAC conference where she praised the bonds between Israel and the United States: more..http://www.antiwar.com/frank/?articleid=10372

[Tellurian]

38. Josuha Frank's articles are Left Wing tripe not recognized as true and balanced reportage

GO HILLARY!

[lumpy]

45. So Hillary's own words are tripe also?

blah

[Tellurian]

48. Joshua Frank takes things out of context tto sensationalize..

and distort. His articles hold no sway here!

GO HILLARY!

[Zhade]

112. Got anything to back up your assertion?

NT!

[rgbecker]

50. Glad to hear the blog-police are on the case.

Thanks for the heads up on the bias reporting of the joshua blog. Some of these guys are apt to quote anything just to make a point. By the why, what is Hilary's position on staying in the Mideast, Iraq in particular. Yeah, start to withdraw in 90 days if the Iraqis don't start behaving, and then? It seems a little unclear that she thinks we'll ever leave. I thought is was Bush who wanted to set up the permanent bases and police the mideast from here on out....only way, he says, to "Stop" the terrorists.

[Tellurian]

59. Sen Clinton's plan :

Is post #10 upthread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x240764#240880


And her Iran Resolution:

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269287&&


And her statements on the ME:

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


GO HILLARY!

[rgbecker]

79. So, am I reading this right?

No plan to leave Iraq, but rather to remain and back up the Iraq army, target specific terrorists, provide logistical support and take care of US personnel in the area. Sort of like now.

And for Iran, the congress gets to vote a new resolution if the president wants to attack them. But don't deal with the elected leader of Iran who might be out of his mind and because he might be playing up to his constituents. Take nothing off the table in terms of use of force in order to stop the Iranians from getting the BOMB. Support Israel foremost.

How does this differ from the Republicans line?

[Zhade]

113. See upthread; her proposal doesn't cap troops, it only pretends to do so.

NT!

[TahitiNut]

61. "Left Wing tripe not recognized as true and balanced "???

Heaven forbid! (Why does this sound like something one might hear on Faux Noise?)

[Tellurian]

63. Because thats where it emanates from..

If you fall for RW talking points; you're beyond help!

GO HILLARY!

[Zhade]

111. According to...you? Why should anyone give your obviously partisan bias a second thought?

NT!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

56. She knows her vote for Bush's war is hurting her politically now.

She also knows that her statements about the "failing insurgency" and "..parts of Iraq are functioning well" are making her look like a fool...or a calculating politician with few ethics and an eye for polls.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-iraq...

[Tellurian]

60. Nice try....blah, blah with a broken link to back the BLAH-Blah!

GO HILLARY!

[B Calm]

64. We both want her to go.. I want her to go anyplace, but not as

the democratic nominee for president..

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

73. Here's the link. Read it and weep.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-iraq-senators_x.htm

[Tellurian]

80. That story is from Feb of 05' Whats your point?

GO HILLARY?|!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

81. She was "fooled" to vote for the war in '03 and "fooled" again in '05.

And, now we're supposed to believe that she's no longer a fool. That, now, she's seen the light, and the bodies from the war she voted for, and has "changed direction".


Of course, that would have nothing to do with the polls that show opposition to the war that she voted for but because of her innate wisdom and decency. Which were obviously lacking when she voted for the war.

[lumpy]

86. These pols disgust me. Clinton recognizes that the

killings continue yet she says "...much of Iraq is funstioning quite well..".."not one polling place was shut down.." Collins acknowldges that the killing beat still goes on and security is more necessary and apparent but.."much has been achieved..." The hospitals and morgues are overflowing but there have been achievments. This is SNAFU but thigs are improving. I guess where there is life, death, destruction, blood, guts and mayhem there is hope. Amazing, everything is in shambles but.. but.. but things are looking up.

[AtomicKitten]

69. her named is spelled "Hillary"

... and IMO her "yes" vote is no more or less egregious than the other 27 Senators that voted "yes."

Rating their explanations for voting "yes" after the fact is like judging a contest in which artists paint with feces, some techniques may be more polished, but the medium is still shit.

[Tellurian]

78. Brilliant!

good analogy!

GO HILLARY!

[NobleCynic]

95. If you were paying attention

He was not agreeing with you. He was condemning EVERY senator that had voted for it. Hillary included.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Her vote will never pass the "smell test".

No matter how desperately she tries to cover it up.

[rgbecker]

85. Yikes! Sorry about the spelling...Still....

What I'm looking for is not a bunch of criticism on her initial vote, mistaken or not, but rather her ideas about what was right or wrong about it and how that might affect her vote the next time. As president after all she will have the right to bomb the shit out of whomever she pleases if she thinks they are threatening the good ol' USA. Does Iran meet her qualifications? How about Hamas? Chavez? As the Republicans on every branch of the media will tell you...We're talking COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF here!

Somehow her Husband, under whom she got all her experience had no trouble being convinced by the pentagon/cia cabal that it would be best to send cruise missiles to take out a drug store, the Chinese embassy, and most of what was left of Iraq's military command. Seems like a hell of a way to run a country.

[Zhade]

114. True. I'm unaware of any other candidates being pushed as THE Dem candidate by the media, though.

Did you notice upthread how her proposal doesn't cap troop levels, but pretends to?

[The Straight Story]

83. Well hell, Al Gore himself saw saddam as a threat and wanted him removed

throw in 9/11 and it is not surprise she signed it. I still don't think she should have but it was a tough situation all around with a lot of lies flying around.

[cali]

98. Neither of my Senators thought it a tough decision at all

It was clear as day to both of them that the threat was utter bullshit. Senator Leahy compared it to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and was prescient about what would happen post invasion.

[mitchum]

87. Which way the wind is blowing?

[Zhade]

115. At soldiers' back going into Iraq, with her 'plan' that pretends to cap troop levels but doesn't.

See upthread.

[Jonathan50]

88. Hillary either knew Bush was going to war with Iraq or she did not know.

If Hillary knew Bush was going to war with Iraq then she is a liar and does not deserve our vote.

If Hillary did not know Bush was going to war with Iraq then she is a moron and does not deserve our vote.

[lumpy]

90. Truly

well stated

[regnaD kciN]

94. What "she knows now" is that most Americans oppose the war...

:spank:

[leftofthedial]

96. nothing

except that she is definitely running for President

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

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