clintons.

I say it's spinach and I say to *heck with her.

* paraphrased from the original to avoid the avid alerters who would be thrilled to see me booted off DU.

You spew about her here on Democratic underground on a daily basis?
If you vote for her doesnt that make you as bad as the claims you throw at her? You seem to hold her to higher standards then you hold for yourself! Somehow your "votes" are different I suppose....

And no, I've made clear that I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY.

oh, and no, I hold myself to a far higher standard than I hold Hillary.

So you are saying you WON'T vote for the Democratic Primary winner if it is Hillary? Are you saying that outright?

You realize the position that puts you in right?

The claim was that Iraq was almost ready to unleash weapons of mass destruction on the US. It was also hinted that Iraq participated in 9/11 attacks.

Fact: we were already in one war, why get into another? Oh yeah, he wants to kill my daddy!
Fact: Iraq had not participated in 9/11 attacks.
Fact: we had decimated this country merely 12 years earlier, does anyone remember that? Who would think they could recover that soon especially with the sanctions we had on them?
Fact: the weapons inspectors said no weapons of mass destruction, give us two more weeks to wrap things up. They weren't given two weeks, lead inspector accused of child pornography to distract from message.
Fact: most non-warmongering people not expecting monetary gain or looking to run for the presidency knew there could be no good outcome from a war with Iraq.

Shameless? Yup, sounds accurate to me.

[blockquote

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

eohistory.info is some page off of what's basically a tea party site with links to Cruz, Carson, and the East Orange Tea Party.

It's no wonder your list is full of bogus right-wing attacks (really petty stuff on there), they originate from one of the nutcases out there pushing Rand Paul and the Teabaggers.

Then, for the biggest HOOT of all you've got a RealPolitics link to a DICK MORRIS hit piece!!! DICK FUCKING MORRIS!

Unbelievable what people think passes for opposition to our Democrats around here.

. . . and calling BULLSHIT on your use of a TEABAGGER site and DICK FUCKING MORRIS to bash our former Democratic candidate.

. . .on our Democratic site for the purposes of bashing a prominent Democrat. I think it violates the tos to post that tripe here.

Let alone refute claims by teabagger web sites.

Get a real source and come back.

It's hard to get info on it, but it was pretty bad. He has targeted them for years with ugly stuff, and he is known for his pettiness toward them.

I found these 3 articles for you.

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1996-08-30/news/9608300085_1_dick-morris-clinton-rowlands

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1997-01-09/news/9701080971_1_dick-morris-scandal-mcgann

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/1996-09-07/news/9609061372_1_breach-dick-morris-national-security

He should not be quoted when criticizing the Clintons.

He's just plain ugly about the Clintons. Long story there, not a nice one.

"negationism"

. . . over-the-top way to frame most of the political differences reasonable folks have with some of her statements - which, I think, aren't all that far outside of the exaggerated or contrary rhetoric of most politicians.

That is I'm not one of "the avid alerters who would be thrilled to see you booted off DU". I enjoy your posts very much and anyone is welcome to post their opinions as long as they are civil and not too rude. I simply disagree with your assessment of Hilary.

You weren't really quite clear in your post.

It's a shame that Iraq ended up with the government they did.

Sometimes we expect too much given human nature.

And maybe these ISIS Hordes will get the Iraqi's to look for common ground. And then, eventually, they can set up the equivalent of the Simon Wiesenthal Institute and roll up those responsible.

turn out well.

Although the expectations that the Iraqis make the cultural changes required to live successfully in a post Saddam environment seem to be unrealistic. And yes, this outcome was predicted by people smarter than me.

I remember something about Iraq being 150 years behind southern Europe on the road to democracy. And some in Spain today are longing to return to a Franco-style republic....

Myself, when I find I have taken a wrong turn, it is not inevitable that I follow the road to the end.

In this confusion and turbulence they really don't have the power to make change.

not just the 25 pages that had been unclassified. There were 90 pages apparently classified that were available for them to read. He told them that invading Iraq would put our country in more danger.

His words:

"Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form," Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

"We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States." He warned: "Blood is going to be on your hands"

cannot field a serious candidate for the presidency that can unequivocably condemn wars like the Iraq war. Both Clintons and Kerry supported the invasion of Iraq, and even Obama has consistently been mealy-mouthed about it, with such gems as: “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know;” and “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.”

condemn wars like the Iraq war. Sadly you must look to the minor parties, neither of the major parties seem to care for or even be as smart as the common person anymore.

I was thinking that a serious candidate would have a shot at winning. But you are right that there are candidates that, although they can't win, are serious in the sense that they have good ideas.

Dennis Kucinich unequivocally condemned the war. Unfortunately, he was getting around two or three percent of the vote. A big part of the problem is how the corporate media frame the debate -- Kucinich's views on Iraq and many other issues were in line with those of a big chunk of the public (especially Democratic primary voters), but the media had told people that Kucinich wasn't a serious candidate. That became a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Minor parties are a terrible idea because that effect is even stronger. When the media tell people that a minor-party candidate has no hope of winning, it's almost always true even aside from the self-fulfilling aspect. A minor-party candidate who actually had widespread popular support could win the primary of the major party that was closer to his or her views.

people running in primaries candidates.

Why are minor party candidates a terrible idea? Because the media tells you so?

Why would you consider voting for anyone that wasn't the best candidate for the job? Do you know how a person is elected President? For the most part they have to get the most votes, the only way they get the most votes is if the most people vote for the candidate that is best for the job.

We need to quit thinking in terms of parties, especially the major parties. Major party candidates do not put the people first or even second.

You write, "Why are minor party candidates a terrible idea? Because the media tells you so?"

So you start off with the speculation that anyone with an opinion different from yours might be a brainless sheep who's just obeying the media.

(In my experience, some people who disagree with me are brainless sheep, but I usually don't find that a useful starting point, even if I get there eventually.)

As to the answer to your question, what I wrote was: "A minor-party candidate who actually had widespread popular support could win the primary of the major party that was closer to his or her views."

The other key factor is that there are millions of voters who aren't very political and who will more or less automatically vote for the major party that they identify with. Many of them don't even show up for the primary.

I really can't conceive of a circumstance in which a strongly progressive, antiwar candidate (favoring single payer and taking a host of other progressive stances) would be able to win the presidential election as a minor-party candidate, but would be unable to win the Democratic nomination. The reverse, on the other hand, is very easy to envision.

Senator Robert Byrd’s (D - West Virginia) prescient Iraq war speeches:

http://www.salon.com/2010/06/28/robert_byrd_iraq_speech_2002/

Powerful. I should have mentioned him. He was a powerful voice against the invasion.
Thanks for sharing.

"I do not think President Obama has been left with good options at this time. He's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't jump in."

The President is not himself "jumping in" in body. He would be sending troops into harms way.....again. And we have treated the veterans of the previous two Iraq invasions like crap. If we are to re-re-invade, we should at least have our system to take care of wounded soldiers up an running in magnificent fashion before we increase our population of war veterans.

Per Andy Borowitz;

The only thing dumber than sending troops to Iraq would be doing it again.

And why not have the UN do the police work this time? Why do we always send our precious young military to do it? The collective resources of every country on the planet should be trying to fix Iraq. We should share the burdens of fixing a country among the nations of the entire planet. The resources of the entire world would be better at accomplishing the impossible than the USA all by itself.

-90% Jimmy

Let's say we here will be hurt if he gets into the fray. The Iraqis will hurt if he doesn't.

Come on.

Of course the worst thing he can do for this country is start spending more money and lives there.

However we tore that country apart, so many really do think we have an obligation.

The UN didn't break it, our cowboy president and VP did with the help of congress.

No, I don't personally think he should do anything, but then I imagine those closer to the fray feel differently.

Last edited Sun Jun 15, 2014, 09:59 AM - Edit history (1)

Rodham-Clinton, she not only supports the TPP but helped write it.

Who said he would not have hesitated to attack Iraq "had the UN given us permission and asked us to be part of a multilateral force."

Good thing he's not planning a run for Prez. You'd be tied in knots.

I have several times compared our "adoration" for Dean in the early 2000s to the same thing in other forms here. You must have missed it.

I do believe Dean was mostly very sincere in his opposition to the invasion. How he would have voted is another question.

I learned a lot from that campaign, and it is pretty much soured me on all politics and most candidates for anything.

What I find the most reprehensible though is for Howard Dean to use his twitter feed to go after public school teachers. He is one of the most ardent supporters of the privatization of education, even more so I think than Obama.

He needs to keep his mouth shut on twitter or become trending again. He deserved all he got that day.

To give him credit he said one of the strongest truths about Iraq when he was giving an interview on San Antonio radio. He said we were never going to win the war in Iraq. That was 2005 I believe. The earth nearly stopped turning from all the attacks on him, then....but he was right.

You were his biggest cheerleader and several times tried to parse those very words into things like "but he didn't really mean that."

We live and learn.

He took a beating when he started on public school teachers. Easy way out.

It does put a rather more substantial bar to be met before eagerly jumping into a near certain spiral meltdown and would also require a wider range of voices and influences just due to the mechanism used that produce at least tenuous possibilities for better outcomes than any we could produce because of our actual intents and goals.

But yeah, in the end it was pretty much stupid to the point of insanity to go in at all and destabilize the country, the region and it's balance of a lot of undesirable and deep influences.

>>>And it is up to them to decide how they will use that precious gift that has been paid for with the blood and sacrifice and treasure of the United States of America. >>>

What "blood" did Ms. Clinton shed?

What "sacrifice" did SHE make?

What "treasure" did she expend? She was.... by her own account ... "broke" at the beginning of hostilities.

Now she's a wealthy woman.

This is where the party, in 2014, is looking for leadership?

Good god.

because Iraq called and they said they'd like to return our Gift of Freedumb.

...then don't.

their culture is the 'greatest gift' we could have given them.

'Democracy is messy'! It's also when you do it yourself.

Let's hope she is rejected in the primary like she was last time. Otherwise, there will be droves of Dems who either stay home or vote third party in 2016. The party is in big trouble if they don't steer away from nominating neo liberals in leadership positions.

. . . I don't see the volatile reactions to her out here that grace these fine pages, and its not reflected in the polls. It's just not borne out by anything that Democrats will stay home in droves or abandon the party. That sounds like projection from this echo chamber.

Not "here" on DU in general, because there are many, many threads of interest to progressive or other Democrats. But why bother to post in this thread to disparage those who oppose her - I see myself as presenting hard facts, not having a "violent reaction". I consider being characterized as having a violent reaction as being disparaged. Not that your opinion has any effect on me - but I have long wondered why you and other staunch supporters who claim she will absolutely get the nomination bother to reply to those who disagree with her tactics, values, Wall Street/Koch connections. "Me thinketh thou do protest too much."

We'll see who steps up and poses a serious challenge to her. I usually pick a dark horse in the primary who adheres to what I want out of the presidency and legislature. Hillary Clinton was my third choice in the last election, Obama the forth.

Your complaint is puzzling.

'Why disparage those who oppose her?"

I just made a point defending her popularity, at least from my perspective, that seemed to be a reasonable response. This board does not always reflect the opinion of the public at large - not even among Democrats polled throughout the country. DU's decidedly progressive bent is normally not in line with the majority of folks who vote in our party or identify themselves under our party banner. That's certainly the case with Clinton, although you'd swear she's the devil incarnate believing the rhetoric that flies around here.

But here it is again:
But why bother to post in this thread to disparage those who oppose her - I see myself as presenting hard facts, not having a "violent reaction". I consider being characterized as having a violent reaction as being disparaged.
"Violent reaction" were your exact words.

vi·o·lent
ˈvī ə lənt/
adjective
adjective: violent

using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
"a violent confrontation with riot police"
synonyms: brutal, vicious, savage, rough, aggressive, abusive, physically abusive, threatening, fierce, physical, wild, ferocious;

I hope that you now understand why use of the phrase "violent reaction" is, at best disparaging and at worst quite insulting.

Here ya go!

adjective: volatile

1. (of a substance) easily evaporated at normal temperatures.
synonyms: evaporative, vaporous; More
explosive, inflammable;
unstable, labile
"a volatile organic compound"
antonyms: stable
2. liable to change rapidly and unpredictably, especially for the worse.
"the political situation was becoming more volatile"
synonyms: tense, strained, fraught, uneasy, uncomfortable, charged, explosive, inflammatory, turbulent;

. . . deal with it.

you need to get a life.

If you don't know any Democrat who will vote for her, you're not really in the real world of politics.

. . . you are really straining to find differences here, fact is, Hillary didn't like or agree with what Bush ultimately did in Iraq and wanted the occupation to end like everyone else.

I don't understand this ragging on her for that; legitimate to criticize her vote and her rationale for believing Bush - way off the mark and over the top criticizing her resolve to end the occupation.

Whatever my vote is or our vote is in the future, we can not forget words like that.

Bob Graham put his career on the line for his stance.

. . . she opposed Bush's push past the inspectors and his rush to invade and occupy and she called for an end to it early and often.

But, I think it's a very fair criticism or judgment that the Senator held one of the most hawkish views among Democrats about Bush's intentions when she voted, and had one of the most hawkish explanations for her vote among her peers. It's one of those 'I trusted Bush' arguments that just makes me want to eat chalk.


consider this, though, which is in line with what you were saying:

Bob Graham: Clinton War Vote Was Anchor Of Her Campaign

"I think that Clinton's vote to authorize the Iraq War was one of the biggest anchors that she had to drag around," he said. "The war was becoming increasingly unpopular, and I think Sen. Obama was able to take that vote and put it into the larger context and say it was a test of judgment and that she failed that test.

"In the Democratic primary the voters have basically had two choices since February," he said. "And so that 55-year-old white male who is a construction worker has two choices. And there are a lot of very appealing things about Hillary Clinton. She is an extremely able person. She is a proven person. People could project with a high degree of accuracy how she would serve as president. So she is a very formidable candidate and a lot of people were drawn to those qualities. But they are choosing between two people: Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama. When it is November there won't be that alternative. There will be the Democratic nominee versus John McCain and that is an entirely different picture . . .


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/09/bob-graham-clinton-war-vo_n_101031.html

I like the way he chose to question her vote without questioning her integrity or character. We could learn a lot from that exchange around here.

What does she have to do, a Jimmy Swagart style repentance?

Obama will bring out the drones like he has in Yemen, Pakistan, etc.

The fucked up part? Obama was right to offer to keep troops there to train Iraqis, but he got shit on in post after post for merely offering. I mean pure bile.

It was vote that changed us as a nation.

There is no good way out of this mess.

This vote was not just a vote, there was no room for being political when we were invading another country based on lies.

She, like the other hawks, played and are still playing CYA when the war became unpopular and an obvious flop.

That's not necessarily a knock because I understand politics is a game and the most successful know how to win at it. Obviously the Clintons, specifically Bill, are very good at this and I suspect Hillary, on the whole, has learned a lot from his ability to win. Even now, even after 8 years of his presidency and 13 years of his post-presidency, I still don't know what he truly believes.

Bill Clinton is a politician at heart. He'll say whatever whenever to get elected or advance his own cause. It was on full display in 1992 when, during the heat of the campaign, he jetted back to Arkansas to oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector. It was entirely politically motivated and a direct response to the Dukakis debate debacle in 1988.

When it comes to Iraq and foreign policy, who knows what the Clintons really believe? Did they support the war because, as Bill mentioned, Bush had the U.S.'s intentions at heart? Or did they support it because, in 2004, they knew down the road Hillary would be running and they couldn't have ever predicted the war would go as south as it did in Bush's second term?

I don't think we'll ever know because, again, everything is calculating with the Clintons.

I was too young for Korea, but my father was an Army MD (just like MASH) who barely missed going to Korea. He saw patients returning from there.

I distinctly remember the "domino theory" arguments in the 60's about escalating Vietnam. My family built a bomb shelter in 1962. No expense was spared on thousands of atomic bombs, ships, and missiles. When I was forced to register for the draft and was classified A-1 in 1968, I was dead set against the war. If I had been drafted I was planning to flee to Canada or whatever I could, but I would not go. My father almost didn't speak to me for a year and I left home to stay with a grandparent because it caused so much family debate.

I KNEW the Bushes were just starting another war for imperialism and profit. I've seen and heard it before, and people in this country need to wake up and quit wasting their lives and dollars on the crazy military.

Do you know how many schools and colleges could have been funded for 2 trillion dollars? Health care could have been free for most Americans. Who knows? Science budgets, environment, everything else would be nothing if we had not spent untold dollars that have not made us safer, but in fact have pissed off most of the world. It's just stupid.

Frankly, I'd like to see a Constitutional amendment that restricts the military spending somehow. I'm SO tired of my entire life watching us spend for cold wars, various invasions every few years, unnecessary wars, military bases in a hundred countries, and unlimited weapons that I could bust.



Madfloridian, you're responsible for my second rant this month!

Sorry I missed the first one.

He presumably had intelligence briefings as recent as January 2001--only a year or so before the neocons started to ratchet up their Iraq threat bullshit. Years of briefings should have told him of any real threats from Iraq that could conceivably warrant an all-out invasion in the foreseeable future. Saddam certainly did not reconstitute any old WMD programs in a year; that shit doesn't develop overnight.

Thanks to the briefings he received, Bill Clinton may have privately known that Saddam had gotten rid of his WMD programs by the mid 90s and there was no evidence of him restarting them.

Hillary had the priceless benefit of her own husband's "ultimate insider" experience and advice as, I assume, did close friend Tony Blair.

Maybe they just did what Wall Street wanted. Again. OIL!!!



(I remember hoping the adults would demand to see/hear the raw intelligence implicating Saddam. Hillary and others on the intelligence committee could have gone over to the NSA and/or CIA and demanded to see/hear it for themselves without George Tenet's "slam dunk" filtering. I vaguely remember Bob Graham one day mentioning something on TV to the effect that there was no raw intelligence implicating Saddam.)

By me, for one.

Hey no power outage yet, but storms big.

I don't believe he really thought that way. Doesn't even make sense. He must have watched the Colin Powell interview.