Latest

Lobby

Search

Options

Help

Login

No substitute for Truth: 3,707 troops killed in a war Hillary and Edwards supported.

Printer-friendly format

Email this thread to a friend

Bookmark this thread

This topic is archived.

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

UrbScotty

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:15 PM
Original message

No substitute for Truth: 3,707 troops killed in a war Hillary and Edwards supported.

Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 02:17 PM by ih8thegop

You would think that two US Senators would've known enough about Bush's war in Iraq than a state Senator, and yet they chose to support Bush's war more eagerly than a few Republicans.

Meanwhile, the "naive" Obama opposed it from the beginning, like most DUers, and like 23 US Senators.

I want a President with good JUDGMENT, folks.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Beaverhausen

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:15 PM
Response to Original message

1. Bush would have gone to war no matter how they voted

put the blame where it belongs.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

frylock

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #1

2. put the blame where it belongs..

on the people who continue to enable it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

UrbScotty

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:22 PM
Response to Reply #1

3. The blame belongs with everyone who supported it

Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 02:23 PM by ih8thegop

While HRC and JRE could've voted No, they not only voted Yes, they were quite hawkish.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jobycom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:28 PM
Response to Reply #3

5. When was Clinton hawkish?

Edwards, yes. Show me where Hillary was. Or admit you are misrepresenting her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Just-plain-Kathy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #5

13. Anyone who voted to give oil/defense tycoon Bush the chance to bring us to war in the Middle East...

...should not be our president. The way I see it, our senators had to know about PNAC, they had to know Bush/Cheney wanted to bring us into Iraq even before 9-11.

...Any senator who's not looking to hold Bush/Cheney accountable should not be our president.

This goes especially for anyone with the last name Clinton.

Remember,

During the Gulf War when Defense Secretary Cheney privatized our military, Clinton left it that way.

Clinton enacted the Iraqi Liberation Act of �98, laying the foundation for the mess we�re in today.

Clinton advised our democratic leaders to sign the Iraq Resolution. ....(During one of the debates Edwards out-and-out said he was advised by �the Clintons�. Being Edwards co-sponsored the resolution, one would think he knew it inside and out.)

It was Clinton�s Telecommunications Act of 1996 which consolidated the number of major media companies from around 80 to 6. ...Now our news is force-fed to us from corporate cronies.

And, it was Clinton who gave us NAFTA, which led to outsourcing our jobs overseas, which helped out Hillary�s ex-employer Wal-mart big-time.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jobycom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #13

14. So you drive a dodge?

I don't care about your laundry list, I asked when Senator Clinton was hawkish about the war.

And as we've established so many times that you must be willfully ignoring it, the IWR was not a vote for war. It was the last, best chance the Dems had to stop the war. It failed, but not voting for the IWR would have only made it happen sooner.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Name removed

(0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Aug-22-07 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #14

31. Deleted message

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

GreenArrow

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #3

11. Plenty of blame to go around

This is, unfortunately, America's war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #1

7. But some folks "helped" more than others......

and gave Bush credibility on this issue and therefore made it easier to accomplish his goal.....

Senator Edwards Calls for Overthrow of Iraqi Dictator
http://web.archive.org/web/20030219152335/edwards.senate.gov/press/2002/0912a-pr.html

Edwards Op-Ed on State Department Website

In September 2002, in the face of growing public skepticism of the Bush administration�s calls for an invasion of Iraq, Edwards rushed to their defense in an op-ed article published in the Washington Post. In his commentary, Edwards claimed that Iraq, which had been successfully disarmed several years earlier, was actually �a grave and growing threat,� and Congress should therefore �endorse the use of all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein�s weapons of mass destruction.� Claiming that U.S. national security �requires� that Congress grant President Bush unprecedented war powers, he further insisted, �We must not tie our own hands by requiring Security Council action ��

The Bush administration was so impressed with Edwards� arguments that they posted the article on the State Department website.

Antiwar.com 1/21/04
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/zunes.php?articleid=3074

Edwards: �A mortal threat to our vital ally, Israel�
�Congress must also make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East"
http://www.usembassy.it/file2002_09/alia/a2091910.htm

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dawgs

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #1

16. So, Hillary and Edwards were wrong for not having the judgment to realize your point.

They at least deserve the blame for poor judgment.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jobycom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:27 PM
Response to Original message

4. And Obama would have if he could have

He's proven he'll go along to get along.

Besides, as you either know or should know, the IWR was a vote to slow down Bush's rush to war. It was the best thing we could get passed through a Republican Congress. The undeniable fact that it was NOT a vote for war is proven by Wesley Clark, who opposed the invasion of Iraq, and encouraged Congress to pass the IWR.

Clinton never actively supported the war. She went the "Support the troops" route, while being highly critical of Bush's handling of it at every step, from his lowballing troop requirements, to his no-bid contracts, to every other step of the way. She couldn't stop it, so she did what she could. You and I both know, or you should know, that Obama would have done the same thing. It was politically popular in his district to be against the war, so of course he spoke out against it as a local politician. His money wasn't on the table, then. If it had been, he'd have done what he had to do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:36 PM
Response to Reply #4

10. Wes Clark did not encourage that the Blank Check bill be passed......

once it was determined that "a" bill would be offered....

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?"
CNN 9/16/02
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

"The Levin Amendment- The Resolution that Wes Clark was "For"!
http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2007/03/the_levin_amendment_the_resolu.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jobycom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:53 PM
Response to Reply #10

12. And the day before the vote, Clark said he would advise congress to pass it.

Your links show someone desperately parsing words to try to nuance Clark into a position he didn't take. Clark on the eve of the IWR vote (after your first quote), while campaigning for a Democratic candidate who openly supported the IWR, said he would advise her to support the IWR. The writer at your link gets into a huff over whether Clark meant "the" or "a" resolution, and draws quotes from various places to prove that Clark would have preferred the Levin Amendment, but as Clark knew it wouldn't pass, and was on the eve of the vote encouraging Congress to pass the resolution (not saying "Only the Levin Amendment," just "pass the Resolution"), his arguments read like a fan trying to defend Michael Vick from dog fighting charges.

Bottom line: Clark was hesitant about invading Iraq, but on many occasions promoted a resolution telling Hussein that the US would invade if he didn't disarm. He and both Clintons were on the same page on this, so that there speeches look like they were coordinated beforehand. To claim otherwise is to really stretch the facts.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:18 PM
Response to Reply #12

17. I have provided my sources.......that Clark didn't support the blank check.

Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 03:27 PM by FrenchieCat

In the meantime, You are saying an awful lot about what Clark thought, did and said, but have yet to ACTUALLY provide back up for your contentions.....

in respect to a Clinton/Clark coordinated view.....and as well other items that you mention....

And so at LEAST Please provide your sourced quote to prove your assertion that ...."have preferred the Levin Amendment, but as Clark knew it wouldn't pass, and was on the eve of the vote encouraging Congress to pass the resolution (not saying "Only the Levin Amendment," just "pass the Resolution"),

In other words, I need your of Clark knowing that the Levin amendment wouldn't pass; "he knew it wouldn't pass"

and
Your Clark quote in where Clark encouraged congress to pass "the resolution" on the eve of the vote.

Thank you.

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

also, the Levin vote was on the same day as was the Blank check vote......as noted below via that website----

Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush Preemption Doctrine UPDATE: House of Representatives The House of Representatives is in the midst of 17 hours of floor debate on the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution � H.J. Res. 114. That debate is expected to end sometime tomorrow. There will then be one hour of debate each on an amendment introduced by Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) and an amendment introduced by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA).
The BUSH-GEPHARDT WAR RESOLUTION gives President Bush a blank check to skirt the Constitutional authority of Congress to declare war, and allows the President to act in violation of U.S. and International Law. IT CONSITUTES A CONGRESSIONAL ADOPTION OF THE BUSH PRE-EMPTION DOCTRINE. Urge your Representative to vote �No� on H.J. Res. 114.

The LEE AMENDMENT would urge the President to work �through the United Nations to seek to resolve the matter of ensuring that Iraq is not developing weapons of mass destruction..." through peaceful mechanism. It is important that we secure as many votes as possible for this amendment. Even Representatives who do not agree with our position should still vote for the Lee Amendment because it upholds the rule of law and supports the United Nations as the proper vehicle for securing a peaceful resolution to the Iraq crisis.

The SPRATT AMENDMENT will also reach the floor of the House and be debated tomorrow. This amendment to the Bush-Gephardt war resolution is the most important vote in the House against President Bush. Although it authorizes the use of United States armed forces, it does so ONLY pursuant to any UN Security Council resolution that provides for the elimination of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and ballistic missiles with ranges exceeding 150 kilometers, and the means of producing such weapons and missiles. The Spratt amendment would mandate A SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS, following the failure of the UN Security Council to adopt such as resolution, AND failure of the Council to sanction the use of force to compel Iraq's compliance. THIS SECOND VOTE IN CONGRESS WOULD BE REQUIRED BEFORE THE PRESIDENT COULD USE MILITARY FORCE.

The Spratt Amendment is being supported by an increasing number of House liberals and moderates alike who see it as the BEST CHANCE WE HAVE TO STOP BUSH. Therefore, any support for the Spratt amendment would be important. This amendment is certainly not perfect, but we need to secure as many votes as we can for Spratt to show the breadth of doubt and opposition to the peremptory approach of the president embodied in H.J.Res. 114.

A MOTION TO RECOMMIT -- At this writing it appears that those opposed to the Bush Resolution will have the opportunity to offer a Motion to Recommit. A �Yes� vote on the motion would send the President's resolution back to the committee of jurisdiction to ensure that Bush cannot go to war until he answers fundamental questions about long-term costs and consequences of an Iraq war to the U.S. economy and the stability of the Middle East. The point of this motion is to require the President to give Congress and the American people the answers they are demanding. (See previously distributed alert on �President Fails to Answer Basic Questions About Iraq War�).

Contact your Representatives and ask them to vote YES to the LEE and SPRATT AMENDMENTS and vote NO to the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution � H.J. Res. 114.

Click here to see summaries of the Lee and Spratt Amendments

UPDATE: Senate
If Sen. Daschle and Senate Democratic leaders cannot come to an agreement on the rules for debate by the end of today, then a cloture vote is likely. Cloture is a method of limiting debate or ending a filibuster in the Senate which takes at least 60 Senators. If a cloture vote carries, then it will deny Senators like Sen. Robert Byrd from filibustering. Thirty hours of floor debate is expected in the Senate, making an actual vote likely on Monday or Tuesday of next week.

The BUSH-LIEBERMAN WAR RESOLUTION is the Senate version of the Bush-Gephardt War Resolution.

The BIDEN-LUGAR AMENDMENT would authorize the use of force only to disarm Saddam Hussein, not depose him.

The LEVIN AMENDMENT, introduced by Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), would curtail the broad powers provided by the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution by requiring the President to first secure a UN Security Council authorization of the use of force in Iraq.
It would require a second vote in the Senate pending action or inaction by the UN Security Council.

Senators should be urged to vote for the only resolution that would mandate a 2nd vote be taken before the President can launch a war against Iraq. Thus, implore your Senators to vote YES to the Levin Amendment and vote NO to the Bush-Lieberman War Resolution � S.J.Res.46.
Don�t give up! To resist is to win!
Send Free Faxes to Congress from True Majority
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102 10/09/02

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jobycom

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 04:55 PM
Response to Reply #17

26. Oh, the stalling tactic.

All of your sources are secondary, which means they are someone's opinion of what Clark said and meant. Within those sources are Clark's actual comments, and everything I posted came from your link, sans the inane explanation of why x didn't equal x. If you know enough to find the sources you did, you know what I'm talking about. But, since others may not:

Clark's speech to the HASC: http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/HearingsPreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm

excerpt:- The United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be further strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing US determination to act if the United Nations will not. The use of force must remain a US option under active consideration. The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail. The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations. The more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its impact in the diplomatic efforts underway.

(My comment: Think this one through. If Congress had authorized a bill requiring Bush to come back and get a second vote to invade before he could invade, how would that satisfy Clark's requirements, since it would still give Hussein room to hope against an invasion? As Bill Clinton (in Ireland) and Clark both said, (and I won't bother with sources, because you either know it already or there's not much point going over it) the key to avoiding a war was to make Hussein sure that non-compliance would result in a certain war. I don't agree, but I'm sure you know that basic fact)).

Next quote: Stephen Frothingham, �Gen. Clark supports Swett, raises concerns about Iraq,� The Associated Press State & Local Wire 9 Oct. 2002. AP: Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports a congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war.

He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for the resolution, but only after vigorous debate. The resolution is expected to pass the House overwhelmingly. Swett has said she supports it, as does her opponent, incumbent U.S. Rep. Charles Bass.

http://www.rapidfire-silverbullets.com/2006/12/the_iraq_war_resolution_did_cl.html (This link has a lot of analysis to argue that Clark didn't say what he said, but the record is more clear than the argument pretends, especially since he was talking specifically about his endorsed candidate's support of the resolution).
http://www.factcheck.org/clark_waffles_on_iraq_war.html (more stuff)

We could do this all day, but you are only stalling. You know what I'm saying is true, even if you wish it otherwise. Clark was opposed to the war, but was concerned about the claims of nuclear weapons, and like both Clintons and many others, he felt that a Resolution demanding Hussein to prove he had disarmed would in fact allow a way out of the invasion that Bush had already said he had the authority to carry out. In other words, Clark, both Clintons, Kerry, and a lot of others saw the IWR as the last chance to avoid a war. It failed, and I wish they had voted otherwise, but to claim Clinton voted for the war is a goddamned lie.

Oh yeah, here's a link to her floor speech. Read it and Clark's back to back and tell me it doesn't LOOK like they coordinated them, as I said. http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #26

30. No, I actually do not see it your way......

Like this quote in your first excerpt that you chose NOT to bold out but comes before what you did choose to bold out....."The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force.....
AND
"The more focused the resolution on Iraq and the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations."

....sounds like he wanted a resolution that needed NOT authorize the use of force (meaning no blank check) and that was "FOCUSED", not a general blank check......for great utility IN THE UNITED NATIONS.

On the second bit, quoting that AP story, it is clear that Clark was not happy about the manner of the debate, as the article states that as part of the headline and within the text of the article.

The reporter states that Clark would advise Swett to support the resolution after vigorous debate..

The FACTS ARE that amendments to the Blank check were still available for congressional members to vote on (Levin and Biden/Lugar)at the time that the article was written. So why would Clark be quoted as advising "Vigorous debate" in the article .....if he was simply advising Swett to vote for the blank check bill that was bound to pass. Why have vigorous debate if nothing was going to change? That doesn't even make sense. The intent of Debate is to change minds.....not just for the sake of saying stuff.

Further, Clark is clearly quoted as saying, ""Normally in a debate, you start with a problem and consider possible solutions. Instead, the president has presented us with a solution before the problem has been fully articulated," he said. "As far as the information we have now shows, there are no nuclear warheads on missiles pointed to America," he said. "You can�t wait 10 years to act, but there is time on our side."

Clark's point was that there was no eminent threat and that there was no urgency. The Blank check basically gave Card blanche to Bush.....and Clark didn't believe that this was a wise option, and was not one that he ever advocated.

You, like those who found it convenient back during the primaries of 2004 would like to forget about the amemdments to the Blank check bill. That's ignoring the facts as they were. Most who voted AGAINST the Blank check VOTED FOR the Levin Resolution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?ex=1187841600&en=ade5f8fbb75fe60a&ei=5070

Clark didn't expect to stop the out of control freight train known as the "resolution" barreling down the hill by September 9, 2002......by then he was just attempting to slow it down. And that, he did try.

Clark's OP-Ed two days before the vote:
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

calteacherguy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Aug-22-07 02:32 AM
Response to Reply #26

32. "You know what I'm saying is true."

Edited on Wed Aug-22-07 03:02 AM by calteacherguy

I realize I am not the one you were addressing, but no I don't know that. What I do know is that everyone on DU over the years who has ever tried to prove your position has failed to defeat the facts. Most have had at least enough sense to give up with fewer ramblings than you have made, but there have been a few that insisted on making fools of themselves for days on end. Do you really think you will succeed in proving your unsubstantiated claim when so many others have failed to defeat the facts? Maybe so, you do seem a bit arrogant with all the "you know what I'm saying is true" talk. This road has been gone down many times before, and the facts always win. Perhaps you should consider them before you go any further in your pointless ramblings.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

FrenchieCat

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Aug-22-07 03:05 AM
Response to Reply #32

34. So true......and notice......poster says "Next Quote", and then

Quotes reporter and not Wes Clark.....

Then tells me that all of my direct Clark quotes (like words coming of his mouth filmed on CNN and words that he wrote in publications) are secondary sources. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

zulchzulu

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:41 PM
Response to Reply #4

23. Obama is on record saying he would have voted with Durbin

Durbin, who was on the same Senate Intelligence Committee as John Edwards and saw the intelligence was skewed, voted against the IWR.

A snip from his 2002 speech:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

"Now let me be clear � I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He�s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I�m opposed to dumb wars."

If you want to see Obama on video saying basically what he said in the speech, watch this:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sXzmXy226po

To say that Obama would have voted to give Bush his war is simply bald-faced lying about the candidate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

frogcycle

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message

6. this is tiresome

To claim that they "supported" what it turned out to be is absurd. I am getting so fed up with hearing Obama beat that horse that I am about to slam one of the doors to the open mind I continue to try to keep.

It is not legitimate argument; it is an appeal to the "sound bite mentality." It says nothing about what they would do with the current mess and does not say that he is competent to do anything about it either. Just that his level of skepticism back then was admirable - and better than theirs.

It reminds me of the harping over Kerry's unfortunate "I was for it before I was against it" comment. Just pound and pound and see if you can hypnotize people.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Miss Chybil

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #6

21. Agree. nt

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Justyce

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:29 PM
Response to Original message

8. Obama voted for funding the war too

I don't think any of the 3 have perfectly "clean" hands in this situation, but none of our Dems are as much to blame as Bush/Cheney.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

draft_mario_cuomo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 05:45 PM
Response to Reply #8

29. And he opposed Murtha in 05', Kerry-Feingold in 06', backed Lieberman in 06',...

...opposed cutting off funds for the surge, was silent and did not lead after *'s veto...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

rinsd

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 02:34 PM
Response to Original message

9. That should read "Obama opposed it AT the beginning."

He has since voted for nearly every funding bill and against withdraw plans.

There's only 2 pure candidates when it comes to Iraq. They are Kucinich & Gravel.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wyldwolf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #9

15. even that is debatable

He was talked into giving his opposition speech to impress a couple of people, has stated he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been in congress, he removed the speech from his website for a while, and then, of course as you said, voted for nearly every funding bill and against withdraw plans.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Dawgs

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #15

19. It's only debatable by desperate Hillary supporters.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wyldwolf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:25 PM
Response to Reply #19

20. because each election cycle, the supporters of the Savior candidate (Obama this time..)

... simply do not know how to take negative news about their candidate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LanternWaste

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #19

24. It's only debatable by...

"It's only debatable by desperate Hillary supporters...."

And people like me who have yet to decide on a candidate and have yet to rule any one candidate out. But then, I'm not smart like you are.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

draft_mario_cuomo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #15

27. Plus, it gave him an issue to run on in what became a 7 candidate primary

Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 05:40 PM by draft_mario_cuomo

He was an obscure candidate fresh off being crushed 2-to-1 in a House race. Yet, he wanted to become a senator. The IWR speech that he has milked for 5 years gave him an opportunity to build an instant statewide base and an issue to run on. Without the IWR he would still be an obscure state legislator. When he became subjected to the same political calculus as Clinton (i.e. a senator from a blue state with eyes on the White House) he had EXACTLY the same positions as her...Going forward? Both have the same plan (keep an unspecified number of troops in Iraq for an unspecified length of time).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Ethelk2044

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:19 PM
Response to Original message

18. Me too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

AtomicKitten

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:31 PM
Response to Original message

22. Me too.

I notice supporters of those that voted 'yes' on the IWR continue to try to slime Obama with it, declaring he would have voted for it if he was in the Senate. That dog doesn't hunt because Obama's 2002 speech was loud and clear on where he stood, calling Iraq a dumb war.

In the famous words of SNL faux Bill Clinton: "I am bulletproof. Next time best bring kryptonite."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Forkboy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 03:53 PM
Response to Original message

25. True.If you're a single issue voter vote your conscience.

For me,as much as I despise the vote it's,there's no one issue that makes or breaks a candidate.

As for Obama,I don't give out points for people saying what they would do in a situation they know they never had to face themselves.It's good that he says it...but big deal.I could say I wouldn't have voted for it too.

Vote Forkboy '08

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

draft_mario_cuomo

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Aug-21-07 05:44 PM
Response to Original message

28. How long will Obama continue the war and with how many troops if he wins?

Edited on Tue Aug-21-07 05:46 PM by draft_mario_cuomo

Maybe he will send some of the 100,000 troops he wants to add to the military and use the increased Pentagon budget he was written about in Iraq?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

oasis

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Aug-22-07 03:00 AM
Response to Original message

33. "...bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely

and therefore, war, less likely"--HRC.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

LWolf

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Wed Aug-22-07 09:18 AM
Response to Original message

35. Truth: Obama has supported the war since he became a senator,

funding it at every opportunity.

Truth: Obama says he is anti "Iraq" war while he funds it; he would prefer to shift all those troops to other places in the middle east, and would keep us at war.

The truth? There is only one candidate that has consistently opposed the war in Iraq and war as a mid-east policy. It sure as HELL isn't Obama.

Since you want truth.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Tue Apr 30th 2024, 12:22 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009)

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate

About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC