Hillary Clinton Says She Wouldn't Have Voted For Iraq War

ABC News' David Chalian Reports: As Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton continues to assess a possible presidential candidacy and the contours of a Democratic nomination fight, she has taken another step away from her 2002 vote authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq by saying that she "wouldn't have voted that way" if she knew everything she knows now.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2006/12/hillary_clinton.html

You can't weasel your way out of this one, Hillary! We won't let you!

is that by saying "what she knows now" is referring to the fact that her vote would hurt her chances of getting the nomination, not anything about the current situation in Iraq.

... ain't that the truth.

Hillary has, at long last, figured out that supporting this abysmal "war" is no longer politically viable.

Gee, it would have meant something just a year ago.

instead of the busheveks, then.

but there was a logic to the votes of other Democrats, too.

The Democrats were clearly headed to a defeat in the November elections that year. If they had voted together and prevented Bush from getting his October IWR, he would have just gotten a new one through in January, after the Republicans took over both houses. And the Republican version would have given Bush a complete blank check, as opposed to the compromise version which attempted (and failed) to put some limits on Bush's actions.

So the Dems had a choice between voting for a compromise resolution in October, or watching a Republican-only version go through in January. Either way, we were screwed.

Voting against the resolution wouldn't have stopped the war.

And I'm not for the war in Iraq and I never was.

...that it wouldn't be an easy little war of aggression in Sandland. What part of "crime against humanity" doesn't she understand?

Is going to run on denouncing the invasion of Iraq as a "crime against humanity": any who did would go down to defeat of land-slude proportion.

The distaste for the occupation of Iraq at present widely felt in the populace owes to the people's realization of the feckless nature of the enterprise, and the bungling incompetence with which it has been pressed. Most who do not support it would still recoil in angry rejection from a public figure denouncing it the terms you suggest, even if thast meant endorsing a candidate who actively supported continuing the thing. The people of the country simply do not, and will not, acceed to the proposition that their military, and their government, is an engine of criminality.

I don't give a rat's buttocks about the "peoples'" refusal to admit the criminality of the war against Iraq. You are as familiar with the Nuremburg Principles and the U.N. Charter as anyone else here-- there is little doubt that the war against Iraq is an unprovoked war of aggression. Would you argue otherwise? Was it a just war? More to the point, there is little doubt that whomever voted in favor of it voted in favor of a crime against humanity in the strictest sense.

Indeed, of you were at all familiar with the history of Germany in the period, you would know perfectly well that awareness of gross criminality was widespread, among both military and civilian persons. This is simply boiler-plate, that you think, for reasons that quite escape me, sounds good and establishes some pretence of moral superiority on your part.

The claim that anyone voting for the enabling resolution, or even military funding, voted in favor of a crime against humanity in any legal sense is similarly nonesense, as you, even while you make the claim to contrary, probably know perfectly well.

The fact remains as stated, that no real Presidential candidate will go to the people with a campaign of proclaiming the U.S. military is a criminal enterprise, and any who did would go down to defeat on a scale that would show Alf Landon or Sen. McGovern as people who might have had a chance had they just caught a couple of breaks by comparison.

Your disdain for the feelings of the people of the country in a matter like this is worth some particular note. In a democracy, of course, disdain for the feelings of the people at large is a gaurantee of political failure. It is also the hallmark of elitist and even dictatorial attitudes towards political life.

That doesn't surprise me-- you're quite adept at that.

Let's see: "you would know perfectly well that awareness of gross criminality was widespread, among both military and civilian persons," a statement that is just as true about America today as it was about Germany in 1940. There is ample evidence on this forum daily. American society, like German society during WWII, is heterogenous, on this and most other issues. My point was that many germans refused to face their national disgrace until there was no real refuge from the truth, just as many Americans likewise want to believe even now that no matter how badly executed the war against Iraq might be, America would never engage in naked imperialist aggression against a weaker nation.

"The claim that anyone voting for the enabling resolution, or even military funding, voted in favor of a crime against humanity in any legal sense is similarly nonesense...." This is an especially artful dodge, since you neatly sidestepped the issue of whether the war against Iraq is actually a war of aggression. I'll remind you once again of the Nuremburg Principles and the U.N. Charter and ask you directly-- do you think the war against Iraq is an illegal war of aggression or do you think it is a just war of self defense? Kofi Annan has specifically excluded the possiblity that the war is in accordance with international necessity, so that leaves self defense as the only legal justification. Will you speak to that question directly, without an artful two-step?

As for the rest of your comments, there is indeed a shameful absence of leadership willing to speak the hard truths. That doesn't make it right, just common.

You would seem to mean, in this context, ignoring the views and sensibilities of the people in the country. "Leadership" that does that generally can be exercised only from behind a pistol, with spacious jails at one's back. Though practical under certain conditions, and for certain temperaments, it hardly qualifies as democracy. In a democracy, people who ignore the views and sensibilities of the voting public get a trifing and insignifigant portion of the votes cast in elections, and therefore are excused participation in government, generally to sighs of relief all around....

You rather sell your fellow countrymen short in many ways, Sir. Most are a good deal more aware and tough minded than you give them credit for, and are quite aware the country behaves often aggressively towards weaker states. They do not protest this in any degree because they do not much mind it, or see anything too wrong with it, since it is what humans beings and their political organizations have been doing since they came into existence. They can be moved to outrage by exceptional examples, by things that are just too much, certainly. But they do not think what is normal is criminal; they think the government is themselves writ large, and are quite certain they are not criminals.

As for the rest, Sir, you seem to be directing questions at someone who supports the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Why on earth would you direct such questions to me?

It's quite amusing. The thicket of verbiage in your last reply was unnecessary. A simple multiple choice answer will do:

The war against Iraq is:

A) a war of aggression, illegal under international law as set forth in the Nuremburg Principles and the U.N. Charter;

B) a just war of self defense, legal under international laws to which the U.S. is signatory;

C) military action mandated by the U.N. Security Council, also legal under international law.


If the answer is (A) then you're attempting to either defend the war or sweep its defense by American politicians under the carpet. And what of those politicians who voted against the IWR? If your answer is (B) or (C), how can their actions be defensible?

A pretty good technical case could be made that the invasion was an act of aggressive war, but doing so is quite irrelevant to any practical aspect of political life here. A politician who campaigned by crying that up would be, and could only be, a fringe figure: it would find no echo whatever among the people of the country. Therefore, examining it is quite unnecessary in considering political developments here, whether past votes or coming campaigns.

"A pretty good technical case could be made that the invasion was an act of aggressive war, but doing so is quite irrelevant to any practical aspect of political life here."

Political life might be convoluted, but right and wrong are often much more straightforward. I believe in holding leadership accountable-- when I can tell the difference, they should be able to as well.

If you labor under the handicap of believing questions of right and wrong are simple and settled on widely if not universally shared lines, you have my deepest sympathies. If you are under the impression government is a moral business, in which decisions are made according to dictates of a morality you yurself subscribe to, then a good deal more becomes clear. Government is an amoral occupation, in which the worst suspicions quite rightly fall on those who proclaim their actions to be rooted in, and expressions of, morality.

What, by the way, do find to be the particular signifigance of 1938? It is a big world, and that was a busy year....

Don't forget Poland!

Anyway, it's clear that you and I will likely never agree about this. I appreciate your arguments in spite of finding your tactics a bit maddening. However, your willingness to so blithely accept amorality in politics is disconcerting when we're talking about acceptance of lying, murder, and crimes against humanity for political ends that, at the end of the day, amount to little more than politicians' self advancement. There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead, and we argue about whether Hillary Clinton is justified in her amorality about it. Somehow I suspect the arguments are lost on the dead or the living whose lives have been shattered.

I admit to being something of a law-and-order guy in this respect. So perhaps we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Disclosed much beyond "lying, murder, and crimes against humanity for political ends" as the chief activities of government, my attitude towards the matter might be somewhat different, but as it is, to complain of it at great length is to complain that a man engages in business to secure a profit: it is the nature of the trade, and will not be altered. It is only the grotesque excesses sometimes pressed that are worth much dudgeon, just as one complains of a business man not when he makes a profit but when he gouges his customers and sweats his laborers to make an unseemly one. What is normal cannot properly be regarded as criminal; the thing is always a question of degree.

:applause:

Many, if not most, of my generation and older and seeing the clear connection with "Good Germans", and shaking our heads at how far we have fallen as a nation.

If we had moral politicians who know how to take the issues to the USian public, this would be not only a "teachable moment", but a clear moral high road.

There are times any society must learn hard lessons. Putting off the inevitable almost always compounds the consequences.

at the time.

:puke:

It is a hollow comment coming now, especially with her playing with the potential of running for President. :sarcasm:

She's just a bit on the late side, I'd say. I'm really not too impressed with her judgement.

The war was a huge mistake. She needs to admit that clearly.
Now that we are in this mess, does she still insist that
the way out of it is to complete this misguided mission?

Though at least she realizes it...IF she realizes it. She sees those rising up around her who were against the war and those who voted for the war, but long ago apologized for their vote.

She reads the same poll numbers as the rest of us.

This would be a perfect opportunity to extend the same courtesy as some have shown others that have backtracked on their IWR vote. I have heard a myriad of excuses that seem perfectly reasonable to some when it excuses their candidate of choice's "yes" vote.

No worries for me, though. I think they all are full of crap and that backtracking on their "yes" vote doesn't bring back to life all those that have died in this illegal, immoral war.

:hi:

I adore your honesty - even when it's not something I want to necessarily hear.

... just as I posted above (did you read it?)

She has a position of power in the 110th Congress and could help to determine funding issues for the war. This is an important function and could determine how many die in Iraq going forward.

Must be nice to be able to sit on the right hand of God and hand down judgements on others. Too bad the merely mortal among us must deal with the situation now, as it exists instead of patting ourselves on the back for being so pure in the past.

This attitude will not save one life in Iraq or spare one American family from a lifetime of misery due to the death of a loved one in Iraq. I suppose it does make certain people feel better about themselves, and I dearly hope that is enough for them.

I want Sen. Clinton to begin to oppose this war now. She is a powerful voice in this Congress and has a say in what happens in this war going forward. It is encouraging to hear her say what she said. It is one more voice for sanity. Sorry if that is not retroactively pure enough for some.

that some deem some Senators who voted "yes" on the IWR worthy of mercy and forgiveness and others not so much, and that disparity in opinion is rendered in earnest sincerity with no inkling that it is judicious prejudice based entirely on whom one supports in 2008.

I am of the opinion that all the jostling for position after the fact is meaningless in the bigger scheme of things, i.e., it doesn't reanimate those that have forfeited their lives in this mess. There is a real disconnect in holding some accountable or more accountable and giving others a pass.

But since Junior clearly has no intention of putting an end to his failed mission in Iraq, it will be up to the Democratic Congress to shoulder the burden with all its attendant slings and arrows that will no doubt be hurled at them by the ever-fractious GOP base. Nancy Pelosi declared in a speech recently here in SF that ending the war in Iraq is her #1 priority. Let it be so.

If not and any delay would be criminal, all ears and eyes will then turn to the 2008 presidential candidates to articulate how they will accomplish that task. And then I predict we will all be treated to the most preposterous political dog and pony show to date.

In other words, purism isn't even in the ballpark of applicable to this scenario, retroactive or not.

And that 'after the fact' events are meaningless. Doesn't this call into question the very idea of taking political action itself. If nothing, after the fact, means anything and all moral questions were settled 4 years ago when the IWR came up for a vote, then why bother to call for anything at all. There is no forgiveness, no sense of being able to affect or agitate for good, no ability to be able to move forward into better action because nothing matters after the fact, according to your logic. Even worse, because there is opposition from the Bush, all actions are futile. This is the most defeatist and pessimistic and insulting argument that can be made.

This is a moral swamp. Each action and each person who changes their mind on Iraq and begins to push toward ending war, ending the violence and toward negotiations and resolution matters. It is the point of the political struggle. If all moral matters are already resolved in the past, then why bother with anything at all. There are people who are yet to die in Iraq, yet to leave the US and yet to be blown up in an IED incident. Does it matter at all if the agitation of one person who did vote for the IWR is the deciding vote in an action that results in that person not being sent to Iraq. What is your moral view on that? Does that action matter in your world view or is the elected official who changes their mind and provides the critical vote for peace irrelevant for all time.

If so, then why are you posting on a political board? Why agitate for candidates or to get candidates to change their minds and votes in an effort to bring about peace? If all moral actions reside in the past, then why bother at all about the future.

You bring the dead into this argument, though the dead no longer care. Could you picture yourself talking to the family of someone injured or killed in Iraq, in say June of 2007 and telling them that no one can do anything for them, no one could ever do anything for them because the morality of the action was settled in 2002. Those who might have affected change were deemed worthless and morally limited because of past action and discouraged from doing the right thing. Would that be the moral and right road to take?

I refuse to wallow in this type of despair. It matters, morally, what you do going forward. It matters that elected officials see their actions as having consequences. And it matters that we become the Peacemakers and Bless those who want to become the Peacemakers as well. That is how you move forward, stop creating more dead and wounded and actually bring about a more peaceful world. To blanket condemn those who erred in the past and tell them that, after the fact, their actions are morally irrelevant, is to take a step to block peace and non-violence itself. It is, dare I say it, an immoral action.

We must think about the future. You have made a reasoned and moral case for moving forward. I hope you might consider posting this in its own thread.

Well done.

Perhaps you can devise a table by which we can rate the back-tracking on the war. That way we will know how many points to award timing, sincerity, style, etc. Please lead the way through this moral swamp you seem willing to wallow in.

I for one choose not to dip my toe into it and compromise my integrity on behalf of anyone. It is no secret you argue on behalf of John Kerry, that you are prepared to lower the morality bar which raises the bar under which he can limbo more easily. The dead can no longer speak for themselves and if they could, I doubt they would be impressed by the back-tracking, and neither am I.

Here's what your hero said before the 2004 election when he had an opportunity to set things straight when it mattered, when he had his back up against the wall, again: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52839-2004Aug9.html I'm not impressed.

The IWR vote was a deal-breaker for the Democrats. It was the moment in history for them to pony up and show us what they've got. And 28 of them failed miserably There is no going back. There is no do-over. As much as you would love for us at DU to use an eraser on our brain to make that vote a blur, I will not. Not with all the nastiness and recriminations and manipulations and brow-beating you and your team dish out. Not on your life. I know who I am. I hold my representatives accountable. Not a single one of them that went along to get along with their insipidly self-serving "yes" vote deserves to lead.

How this is resolved is an entirely other matter, and I'm afraid those stars in your eyes over the political posturing in the guise of mea culpas and trips to the Middle East to "sort it out" don't erase the complicity some Democrats have on their permanent record. It's a dog and pony show and you are just too blind to see it.

I'm afraid the moral clarity you claim is, in fact, hopelessly blurred. And all the posts giving you a high-five do not render that truism false. It just punctuates the insidious fangirl/boy infiltration of these boards.

So, you prefer to dwell in the moral swamp of no action possible.

How sad for all those who might die. How sad for all those for whom action and pressure on elected officials to do something now might have had an effect.

How profoundly sad that, in an argument that didn't mention anyone in particular, you felt the need to bring in other names. You can't argue the merits of this, you can only argue from bile and bitterness. So, you bring in words I didn't say and people I didn't mention. I understand this impulse, but it's sad. You assume motive, another symptom of a bankrupt argument. I am sorry for you for this. Pretending that there is some sort of conspiracy plot going on and that you don't, therefore, have to speak to an argument, is sad and intellectually void of content. (I accuse, therefore, I don't have to explain. I know the people you are with, therefore, I don't have to pay attention to anything you have to say. How saw. Thinking like this starts more wars than it finishes.)

Too bad. I hope the moral purity keeps you warm at night and that the sense of moral superiority lights all the dark corners for you going forward. I will try and keep up the pressure on those in power to change how they vote and how they act. That is also a light and a real one that calls out for action. It might prevent injury and death going forward. It is unclear from your post exactly what you want to do going forward, besides name calling and assuming that you know the motives and inspiration of others. How profoundly sad and morally insufficient and argument that is.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

for your own lack of moral judgement

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

her current statements don't negate the flawed character which permitted the earlier stands. THAT'S
where retroactive purity means something. I want someone in the White House with the moral compass to make decisions with intelligence, integrity, and a real caring for the American people, not their own political needs.

Makes me want to vote for her even more.

Here's my problem with that: HOW COME SHE DIDN'T KNOW? I did. I ain't in Congress. I knew.

And why did she not want an inquiry into Downing Street Memos?

not AGAINST the Kerry-Feingold amendment. Framing is a fun game, isn't it?

And dispelling the myth you like to propagate about HRC not wanting an inquiry into the DSM:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh061305.shtml

but I can't see anything here about Hillary wanting an investigation into the DSM. The closest I can get is that at the end there is a discussion about comments that were made by Hillary on the press being soft on Bush - nothing about DSM. Then Harwood,(WSJ)who was one of 4 pundits on MTP mentioned that the information in the DSM was covered during the 2004 campaign - which is NOT true.

The only venue for investigating the DSM is the Senate Intelligence Commmittee. She did not sign Kerry's letter demanding it be done and to my knowledge she has never called for it.

What in the attachment are you pointing to.

A more clear reference to the discussion I posted here:
http://07-23-2002.blogspot.com/2005_06_12_07-23-2002_archive.html



Also not signing Kerry's letter does not equate to Hillary not wanting an investigation. Again, framing is fun! Not accurate, but fun!.

***

Regarding Kerry's letter on the DSM (probably something some wish wasn't brought up, right? it's all about framing, perspective, and difference of opinion):
http://bellaciao.org/en/article.php3?id_article=6283

Kerry to bring issue of Downing Street Minutes/Memo to Senate

NEW BEDFORD — Sen. John F. Kerry yesterday called on Americans to be more aware of the "bait and switch" Iraq war and the "hollowing out" of the Army in the pursuit of a mistaken policy.

snip

"The Holy Grail of the Republican Party is a tax cut, whether or not we need it," he said in a meeting with The Standard-Times editorial board. Sen. Kerry puzzled over the apparent lack of interest by Americans in the Iraq war and the near silence in the U.S. mass media about the so-called Downing Street Memo.

That leaked secret document, the minutes of a 2003 cabinet meeting of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, says bluntly that Mr. Bush had decided to attack Iraq long before going to Congress with the matter, and that "intelligence was being fixed around the policy."

It caused an uproar in Great Britain and badly hurt Mr. Blair in national elections but went almost unnoticed in the United States. "When I go back (to Washington) on Monday, I am going to raise the issue" he said of the memo, which has not been disputed by either the British or American governments. "I think it’s a stunning, unbelievably simple and understandable statement of the truth and a profoundly important document that raises stunning issues here at home. And it’s amazing to me the way it escaped major media discussion. It’s not being missed on the Internet, I can tell you that."

(Publisher’s note: It is important to note that John Kerry has not mentioned the memo until now, over a month later, nor has he helped inform people via the internet. It appears that the momentum on this information is so overwhelming that John Kerry feels he will now be exposed as a do-nothing bush supporter/collaborator if he doesn’t say something. Also this shows that John Kerry knew damn well what was happening on the internet after the stolen election- he just decided not to say anything about the huge discrepency between exit polls and results and instead left the country during the election challenge)

snip

(John Kerry had the perfect opportunity to expose Bush and these lies during the election runup but instead he let Bush go on lying...seeming to throw the election- so it is ridiculous that he states this now.)

of pressuring every other senator who WASN'T.

And so do you.

Investigative journalists are always supported by me and have been for over a decade, and for about 5 yrs at this forum.

Your quote says the panel discussed Hillary's comment AND the coverage of the DSM. The Hillary quote in the article does not mention the DSM.

As to the Kerry letter, there is no reason for US to be uncomfortable - you link to an obscure lefty freeper blog. This is OPINION and in general it gets the facts wrong. Kerry was one of the first Senators to mention the DSM (I think he was the second)and he took it the furthest. It is not clear what this man wanted Kerry to do on the internet - the DSM information was on the internet and most people on DU were happy that Kerry was speaking about it and getting others in the Senate to back him. Hillary opted not to be one of them. Bill Clinton much later claimed he didn't know much about the DSM. Addressing the Senate Intelligence committee and calling on them to keep their commitment to investigate if the intelligence was manipulated was the correct way to do it - only they have jurisdiction and the authority to investigate it. (Kerry is not superman - he could not force this on his own.)

You highlight the comments from the blog publisher - who was clearly angry that Kerry didn't win/ conceded Ohio/ etc. but that doesn't make what he said true.

Kerry could not have spoken of the DSM in the run-up to the election AS THEY WERE NOT KNOWN at that time. Kerry constantly spoke of "Bush misleading us into war without a plan to secure the peace .. etc." It was in EVERY speech he gave in 2004 and he said it in the debates. Your earlier link disproves this compalint. These comments are in fact what Harwood - in your earlier link - is alluding to in saying that the DSM allegations were covered in the the 2004 election. (Harwood was wrong though because Kerry COULD NOT say that the intelligence was intentially manipulated from the begginning because he didn't know that for a fact. So, Kerry spoke of the intelligence being wrong AND Bush rushing into war when diplomacy was not exhausted and not keeping his promise to go to war as a last resort. Do any of these phrases ring a bell in your memory???????)

to elevate Kerry and stomp on everyone else. If you only had a clue that that only works on fangirls.

.

You have extrapolated that to mean she didn't want an investigation. In fact, she complained loudly on TV about the media giving BushCo a free ride on the war AND the DSM. In fact, she brought it out into the light whereas Kerry wrote a letter to the Senate. I'm afraid only someone with stars in their eyes would find the latter more valuable.

while promoting a late in the game tossed mention of the DSM that was never acted upon.

She voted against Kerry/Feingold AND for the Levin/Reid bill.

when you can't post a reply to any positive Kerry poster without including some form of personal insult to them. I prefer asking you instead of the alternative and hope you will honor the request. I find no satisfaction in answering you using your tone, as deserved as it might be at this point.

when, in fact, you have simply been challenged.

That's really a lame way to shut down discussion.

to further investigate the Downing Street Memos when given the opportunity to do so as an official senate action

You flatter yourself to think your found note of a tossed in comment about the DSM amounted to a significant development for the senate investigation.

I can safely assume the majority participating in this thread did not vote for John Kerry in 2004. "Responding to a challenge from President Bush, last week Senator Kerry stated that even if he had known then what he knows now, he still would have voted to authorize the use of force against Iraq in October 2002." From FindLaw, but it's common knowledge. This was 2004. I'm pretty sure most people on the left were aware of the lies and distortions(at least I was) that led us to war during the last presidential elections. How did this "scumbag yes voter for the Iraq War" get nominated? Oh yeah, he's not Hillary Clinton. Thanks.
quickesst

I knew b*s* was a liar then. I knew the case wasn't made.

Why didn't she?

and one that 28 Democrats need to answer. Spread the love.

Democratic Senators who vote to authorize the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

God bless the brave, sane Democrats who DID vote against it. Piss off, Hillary. I'm not interested in your bullshit excuses.

to stop US made cluster bombs being used against civilian targets...

Guess that would have been an ex post facto "Bad Israel! Bad! Don't destroy the Lebanese again, and I mean it!"

She held up Ryan White funding for FY 07 because of the new formulae that would increase funding to SE and MW states outside of the original epicenter of HIV: NY, FL, and CA...had some catty remarks about "sick people going to NY to get the good benes" and that "Congress needs to address this by giving Medicare to HIV patients...later..." those are not exact quotes, of course, but they are close enough.

They why didn't you filibuster for that then, Ms. Clinton?

4 people in SC have died waiting for HAART since they got their 200 person + waiting list for HIV meds.

I'm tired of triangulatin', backwards-moving, Newt-and-Rupert-4 Seasons- dining backbenchers who act as if they deserve something they don't.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

Why didn't you?

We tried to tell ya, remember?

:eyes:

just like the rest of them

none of this was predictable or that it was all in the botched execution of the war by the Bush administration - though that did happen as well. There were plenty of voices saying before the war that this was inherently a terrible idea and bound to fail if anyone was willing to listen. Sorry, Hillary, that just won't cut it.

if Hillary were really that stupid that she took
Bush's word, or the word of his cronies -
as good enough to invade a sovereign country and
commit a large genocide, then

if she is that stupid, she's too dumb to be dog catcher.

But she's not stupid, shes a craven self serving
politician who voted to send our troops to death for
a war based on lies.

Say no to the Clinton/Bush dynastic rule.

No to

Bush
Clinton
Bush
Clinton

See a pattern?????

We are turning into a monarchy

:evilgrin:

piece of mercurial inconsistency. God she would say anything to get elected.

I attended (11/05) a conference of Wes Clark's political action committee, at which Sen. Carl Levin (D-MICHIGAN) was a speaker. In response to a question about IWR, Levin said that ALL the Dems. had enough intelligence information to know that the WMD/nuclear claims were unsubstantiated or just bogus. That is why he and others with political courage voted against it. Those who voted "for" were mostly those needing to look strong on security (Hillary?) or just lacking the courage to take a stand unpopular at the time (Hillary?).

Doesn't mean diddley squat. She's 3 years late. That's like saying the home team is going to win the football game when they're 4 touchdowns ahead in the last 30 seconds of the game. Don't let her off the hook. She should have kept her mouth shut instead of a clearly pandering remark. What a lack of character!

She said this exact thing months ago in a letter to her constituents...

she didn't appear too worried about the established field of
candidates, but obama is an unexpected development, and clearly
has her worried.

having said all that, I remember the machine-like effectiveness
of the clintons once they officially get into campaign mode. I
think she/they will get this figured out.

;-)

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

So this means . . . . what?

live the rest of their lives in peace

Sigh, I never thought I'd be piling on against Senator Clinton, but this sh!t has got to stop!