Blogs buzzing over Clintons Iraq war vote comment

gaiilonfong

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 05:53 PM
Original message

Blogs buzzing over Clintons Iraq war vote comment

They said she stepped in a beehive.
Every major blog is lit up.
She is so desperate, she would start this crap again
This and calling Obama too liberal etc etc.

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2008/01/hillarys_claim_i_wouldnt_have_started_iraq_war.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Windy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 05:55 PM
Response to Original message

1. Not a good move on her part. burning up the wires at Kos too

Edited on Sun Jan-06-08 05:59 PM by Windy

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/6/165652/7161/441/431794

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 05:57 PM
Response to Original message

2. Again -- as with most attacks -- I don't see the problem!!

"After 9/11, I would never have taken us to war in Iraq. I would have stayed focused on Afghanistan because the real threat was coming from there."

That's right, and that's basically what she said on the floor at the time of the IWR vote. So did John Kerry and others.

Trusting the Chimp to do what he'd said he'd do was clearly a mistake.

But it does NOT mean that she (or Kerry) would have invaded Iraq as he did.

What's the big fuss?!?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Skip Intro

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #2

4. They want you to forget last night as quickly as possible. That's all this is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #4

6. It's crazy. It's like everybody has "actionable stupidity" all of a sudden.

(Opposite of "actionable intelligence." I made that up.)

And, everybody is still focused on 2003, not 2009. :crazy:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:10 PM
Response to Reply #6

10. She is running on her "experience" and her record.

As all the candidates must. So we can't bring up her vote for the largest foreign policy disaster in the history of the United States, one that will haunt us for a generation or more because it was 5 years ago?

Wow.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #10

11. Of course you can bring it up -- everybody knows about it anyway.

But it'd be really great if people understood the difference between voting for the IWR and WANTING Bush to do what he did with it.

Is that just too subtle or complicated?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #11

21. So... the spin is...

She voted for something but she didn't really want it.

Great. Was someone holding a gun to her head at the time to make her vote for something she didn't really want?

Or perhaps there is another explanation that is easier to swallow. She voted for it because she didn't want to be labeled as "soft on terror" and weak. And because conventional wisdom at the time was that our armed forces would role over Iraq in a few days or weeks... and maybe Saddam did have some WMDs somewhere and if he gave one to Hamas, well, the AIPAC folks would never vote or donate to her again if terrorists used it against Israel. So let George do it to Iraq and Saddam and hope its all over with shortly. Then, in 2008, long after the Gulf War II would be over, she could run for President on purely domestic issues while telling everyone that she was on the "right" side of the WOT and voted for whatever Bush asked for.

Maybe that was the triangulating logic that was used to decide to vote for the IWR.

Ya think?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #21

26. Here we go again.

"She voted for something but she didn't really want it."

Sort of. They did vote for the threat of an invasion -- which means the possibility of an invasion -- to put teeth into the push for inspections. This was to persuade the UN security council to unite in pushing for inspections.

Instead, Bush cut off inspections and told the UN security council he wanted to invade right away, and they did not agree to it. So he said "who needs you" (= why they hate France) and did it anyway, just the US, with help from the UK. Oh, and the coalition of the willing to be bribed.

The senators didn't vote for him to do that. Remember at that time, nobody knew for certain whether there were WMD there. The issue was how to find out, and putting pressure on Saddam to permit full access for inspections. He was supposed to take the IWR to the UN and say, "See, the US is serious about this -- we need inspections or we will use force." It was not supposed to be a rush to war.

So their mistake was trusting the Chimp. And as I posted elsewhere, I think it was a political calculation on their part, and a bad one.

I do agree they were worried about being accused of being "soft on terror" or unpatriotic etc... That was soon after 9/11 and a lot of the country was in that "patriotic stupor."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #26

29. I believe Senators are perfectly capable of crafting legislation

So... being a Senator and all, why not offer up a bill that states specifically what is wanted and what the time frame for compliance was, and hint darkly that the use of force AFTER failure to comply (as determined by, say, UN inspectors, not Bush) might be needed.

That's not what was in the IWR. And Iraq DID try to comply, only Bush kept saying "prove you don't have anything" (it's impossible to prove a negative), and Bush had the handy little IWR in is hip pocket which enabled him to launch the attack.

Hillary was a Bush enabler. As were many Dems in the Senate at the time. Sad, but true. And they all need to share in the responsibility for the worst disaster in foreign policy in our nations history. Part of that is that nobody whose fingerprints are anywhere near it should be our next President. If for no other reason then the fact that we, as a nation, need to tell the world that we repudiate what was done.

And I think that is the heart of the argument for change. It's really about a change of personnel AND policy.

Put it another way... if someone is the CEO of a company, and makes some disastrous decisions that cost the company its reputation and financial security, not only do you (as stockholders) ask for the CEOs resignation, and possibly other officers as well, but you get rid of the Board of Directors too. Change...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #29

30. GOP was in control.

I know what you're saying about much of this.

"Change of personnel AND policy" though -- Edwards, Obama and Clinton have virtually the same policy positions.

And I think your analogy works if you consider Bush that CEO. His decision was unilateral. Clinton, Kerry, Edwards et al could have voted "no" and he'd still have done it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wtmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #26

42. Agree. But that solidifies her role as a follower, not a leader

Edited on Sun Jan-06-08 07:35 PM by wtmusic

She went along. Presidents shouldn't "go along" with anything but what is right and what is prudent. IWR was neither.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:15 PM
Response to Reply #21

32. Thank you for your post lapfrog..

Edited on Sun Jan-06-08 07:15 PM by zidzi

That's exactly what happened from my vantage point in New York..there's all kinds of ways to ferret out the details but that's a very good quick synopsis.

Political expediency with presidential stars in her eyes..the senate seat in New York a mere stepping stone. And to think I defended her from such accusations in the very early part of the century.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

roguevalley

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #11

45. that doesn't make sense to me. she voted fro something she

didn't want. the vote for that would have been no. that's like taking the chaks out from under your cars tires and being amazed it rolled downhill into a tree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

regnaD kciN

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #2

7. Isn't it ironic that she spoke of "words versus actions" last night...?

At the time of the IWR vote, she (like Kerry) said all the right words about not going to war, while her actions consisted of casting a vote that would take us to war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #7

8. Do you remember the vote, and what was in the IWR?

Do you remember why they said what they did, and why they voted as they did?

Yes, their actions did cast a vote that ultimately enabled the war. Their mistake was in trusting Bush.

No, they did NOT want him to use the IWR to go off half-cocked invading Iraq. They said that quite plainly.

We've discussed this now for over 4 years!! And people only get more confused, it seems.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #8

13. Nope, I'm quite clear on it.

The vote for the Iraq War was a stupid and huge mistake. Others that voted for it have apologized (if this was Imperial Japan, I would have expected a mass Hari-Kari on the steps of the capital to apologize to the nation). Why can't Hillary admit that this was a huge blunder?

Now that you mention it. Trusting Bush was a mistake. Do we really want someone as President who has shown such a lack of judgment?

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #13

18. I answered most of this below.

My guess: She hasn't apologized because she believes it's not in her political interest to do so.

Edwards apologized because he believes it is in his political interest to do so.

Although he previously said he didn't know how he'd have voted and was never put to the test, Obama campaigns on the IWR vote because he believes it is in his political interest to do so.

They are POLITICIANS.

As long as there is no other Bush in the White House, I'm really not concerned about lack of judgment in trusting treasonous assholes not to order reckless invasions. If she were in charge herself, yes I would trust her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Arugula Latte

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #8

31. "Their mistake was trusting Bush."

Were they really that naive? Of course not. We knew he was lying his ass off and would do anything to go to war, indeed that the occupation was planned not as a last result, but as a WANTED war for U.S. corporate dominance of the region. She knew it damn well, too. Yet, she helped pave the way for all that, just so they couldn't label her a peacenik or a terrorist lover or something.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #31

34. Not that "trusting bush" argument

again. Too bad they didn't have access to a computer and got online.. they could have learned all kinds shit that didn't jive with what the bushits(known LIARS) were feeding them.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Arugula Latte

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #34

40. Gosh, didn't those tens of thousands of calls to Congress tip them off?

Remember that MoveOn organized action where thousands upon thousands upon thousands of us called Congress to tell them to vote against the war, that Bushco was lying their asses off, and that we saw through all the hype and propaganda? Gee, maybe they should have paid more attention to public sentiment. We tipped them off. They turned their back on us.

Hillary can bite me. She made her bed, now she's lying in it. I hope her campaign explodes like the Hindenberg on Tuesday.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:39 PM
Response to Reply #40

43. That's right and I

and my friends were calling her office and chuckie schumer's too. They ignored us at the needless peril of the Soldiers' lives and it turns out ..at their own peril, too.

Even if she loses on Tuesday ..they have so much money that they will drag her thing out until the bitter end. So, when we get our candidate it's going to be surreal, especially if it's not the enevitible one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:19 PM
Response to Reply #7

33. Total Irony...lost of course on

pandering desperadoes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #2

9. So I'm guessing that when she is President

and she is handed a PDB titled "Bin Laden determined to strike within the US", she can say later that "nobody could ever imagine this happening so there was no way to prepare for it".

Where have I heard that before???

And I really don't care what other Dems voted for it.

What matters is that Hillary has never repudiated the vote for war with Iraq.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #9

12. Umm...... What?

I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. :shrug:

She "repudiated" what Chimpy did with the IWR. She says it wouldn't even have come to a vote if people knew then what they know now.

I don't blame the Democrats who voted for the IWR for what Chimpy did with it. I think they did make a mistake; I think they really didn't want a war. It was a political calculation, and a bad one in the end.

But it's DONE.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

lapfog_1

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #12

17. And there are consequences for actions

Yeah it's done. And the war is was a huge mistake. But she voted for it... and there are consequences for her lack of judgment. Like not getting a shot at being President. Sucks, but there it is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #17

19. We went all over this, over and over, in 2004.

They didn't "vote for the war." They voted for an authority that Bush misused.

Maybe it will cost her the White House. Maybe "oops sorry" will absolve Edwards. I don't know, that's not up to me.

I think there are plenty of other things about the FUTURE to focus on now.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

ngant17

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #19

39. semantics and meanings

Well, it's okay to play with words and the meaning of words, but when it results in putting 1 million innocent Iraqi civilians into the meat grinder, as in murdered, killed, caught in the crossfire, mutilated, tortured to death, ect., then you have to take responsibility for the consequences of your words and your vote for/ against the war in Iraq aka IWR.

Hillary was/is incredibly naive or, more plausibly, made a serious political miscalculation in voting for the IWR. She didn't need the votes, she was already a Senator of NY.

Bottom line: you don't give someone who fits the profile of a murderous thug a loaded gun to play with. You try to keep him/her away from the various tools which can and will facilite death and destruction on a mass-scale. The IWR was one of those WMDs, albeit a paper WMD, which _Bush should never have been given to play with. And who wants to accept that responsibilty?

If Hillary says she will pull troops out in 60 days once elected, well so what? What if she changes her mind and doesn't do it? IMHO consistency more than experience is the most important attribute for taking on a powerful position of POTUS. I like to be able to predict what people will or will not do based on their past record. When you introduce variances in that equation, I go for the candidate with the least amount of variances in 'doing what they say and saying what they do'.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #9

35. Exactly...I don't care anymore, either..

they've all apologized and it's too late for hillary. I cared in 2004 cause then I wanted Dean but Kerry has come a long way since he got voter frauded outta his presidency.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

peacetalksforall

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:29 PM
Response to Reply #2

20. Were you on DU at the time - or some/any of the other sites - Bradblog or like Bradblog -

meaning the better blogs?

All of us saw through Bush and Cheney. We knew that the invasion of Iraq was coming. There was even a quote from Rumsfeld saying that he/they didn't want to 'move in' to Afghanistan and wanted to go to Iraq because of terrain. Our equipment was more conducive to Iraq.

ALl of us were dumbstruck at the pre-comments of our Senate and Representatives and they disappointed us bitterly with their votes.

It means -

mere citizens figured out what they were going to do ahead of time, but our leaders couldn't.

As good citizens, we may have held out hopes that our leaders knew things we didn't know. BUT, THAT DIDN'T TURN OUT TO BE TRUE. Some of us felt extremely betrayed.

I remember thinking and not writing that there was a meeting of the Senators - the pre-dominant DLC members and they decided to go with Bush for votes.

All these long years and all this blood, extreme sorrow, horror, embarrassment, disenfranchisement and I think I was right.

The point is - we knew that all the posturing was to go into Iraq. But Clinton, Shirmer, Kerry, Edwards and many others didn't or ignored it. There is NO OTHER way to summarize it.

So tell us where you were reading in those days - it may jumpstart your memory.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:39 PM
Response to Reply #20

24. Yes.

Smirking Chimp, BuzzFlash, MediaWhoresOnline (my favorite), and Bartcop.

Yes, I thought voting for the IWR was a mistake.

No, I don't think he "made the case" nor that he would "make the case."

I didn't agree with their votes. I think it was a political calculation on their parts, and it backfired. After 9/11, Democrats were worried about looking weak on security, and feared that accusation; and, not backing the president's trip to the UN could lead to charges of not being patriotic, etc.

And I really think they didn't believe he'd do what he did. It was pretty damned audacious. And if they thought he might (who knows), I doubt anybody realized he'd be SO incredibly stupid that it'd be fubar within weeks.

Remember too that at that time, nobody knew for certain that there were not WMD in Iraq. The question was how to find out (inspections) and then what to do next if inspections weren't given full access, involving the UN security council. That's what the IWR was *supposed* to be about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

peacetalksforall

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:49 PM
Response to Reply #24

27. This paragraph set syou apart from me. I knew. They should have known.

"And I really think they didn't believe he'd do what he did. It was pretty damned audacious. And if they thought he might (who knows), I doubt anybody realized he'd be SO incredibly stupid that it'd be fubar within weeks."

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Sparkly

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #27

28. "They should have known." Nobody knew for sure.

Nobody even knew for sure whether there were WMD there.

Nobody knew whether the UN security council would push for a different action.

Yes, I figured Bush wanted a war -- H2S and I predicted way back when he was running against Gore that he'd start a war in the middle east if he took office, and our guess was it'd start with Iraq. We actually thought so that far back.

They made a mistake, I agree. But it doesn't mean they wanted Bush to do what he did, much less that it's what they'd have done themselves. That's the point I'm making.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

peacetalksforall

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:32 PM
Response to Reply #28

41. You're not getting what I'm saying and I'm not accepting what you're saying.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

bvar22

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #2

46. So we should vote for Hillary because

she demonstrates shocking poor judgement by trusting Bush? :shrug:

NOT a good platform.

I'm glad 153 Congressional Democrats had the wisdom to not trust a drunk with the car keys.

The Democratic Party Honor Roll
These Democrats should be remembered for their principled stand against the WAR Machine.

IWR

United States Senate

In the Senate, the 21 Democrats, one Republican and one Independent courageously voted their consciences in 2002 against the War in Iraq :

Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
Barbara Boxer (D-California)
Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
Bob Graham (D-Florida)
Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
Patty Murray (D-Washington)
Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)

United States House of Representatives

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives:

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Skip Intro

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 05:59 PM
Response to Original message

3. Heh. You're the one who looks desperate.

You don't even include her quote in your op.

What major blogs are lit up over this?

C'mon, I know substance is a foreign concept to many on Obama's team, but please, a little here and there is required to sustain reality.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

asthmaticeog

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:01 PM
Response to Original message

5. "Every major blog..."

Then link to more than one, please.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Windy

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:18 PM
Response to Reply #5

15. Here's another blog.... not good for Clinton

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

jgraz

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:17 PM
Response to Original message

14. Aw Hillary, and just when I was starting to like you

Well, not really. But she did look good in the debate last night. I knew it wouldn't last.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #14

36. Jeeze, J!

You were killin' me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

dailykoff

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:19 PM
Response to Original message

16. Who set the phaser on self-destruct?

This is sad.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

K Gardner

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:33 PM
Response to Original message

22. Hillary to Concord Monitor: I did not have reason to doubt....

Edited on Sun Jan-06-08 06:35 PM by K Gardner

(from older DU thread:)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3881766

Aug. 25, 2007 Concord Monitor: In 2002, Clinton voted to authorize President Bush to go to war in Iraq. Unlike other Democratic presidential candidates who cast the same vote, Clinton has refused to renounce her decision, arguing that the fault lies solely with Bush for launching the conflict.

From the Concord Monitor Interview Dec 21,2007

Clinton: "No, it wasn't Colin Powell. it was Condi Rice. Condi Rice told me specifically when I was still weighing all of the evidence, and I had been to the White House one last time -- I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was Oct. 8 -- and I'd had the whole presentation by the CIA and others and I hadn't asked any questions, I had listened. And I went back to my office, and Condi Rice called me and said, You didn't ask any questions, do you have any questions? I said I only have one: Will you use this authorization to put inspectors back in, so that we can find out whether any of this is true, how much WMD he still has or has reconstituted? She said, Yes, that's what it's intended to do. I think Dick might have gotten confused."

Monitor: And you had no reason to doubt her?

Clinton: "I did not. Because -- certainly I didn't rely on the Bush administration. I did a lot of my own due diligence, I talked to a lot of people in my husband's administration, I talked to Tony Blair, I talked to a lot of sources, and I had the same question: Do you think he still has these kinds of capacities? And the rationale made sense to me."

http://www.yourconcord.com/primaryblog/clinton_rice_lin...

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

featherman

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:38 PM
Response to Original message

23. Edwards, Clinton and Kerry voted for the IWR

Seventeen (I think) brave Democratic Senators did not! They took a principled and correct stand at a time when it was not popular to do so.

Edwards, Clinton and Kerry did not and no amount of "I was wrong apologizing" will ever change that for me.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DrFunkenstein

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 06:43 PM
Response to Original message

25. Why Did Clinton Invoke 9/11 at The Close of Her IWR Vote Speech?

Edited on Sun Jan-06-08 06:45 PM by DrFunkenstein

Knowing full well that the two had nothing to do with each other, even quietly acknowledging it in the body of her speech. That is the worst kind of politics, the kind we openly reject from Republicans.

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

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

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Cha

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:26 PM
Response to Reply #25

38. Thanks! Something else that

gets shuffled under the pile of high crap coming from the clinton campaign.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

wtmusic

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 07:26 PM
Response to Original message

37. There is no contradiction in what she said

She gave the President authorization to invade Iraq.

If she had been president, she wouldn't have done it.

I am waiting for an apology for voting to authorize (stupid move).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Infinite Hope

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 08:31 PM
Response to Original message

44. What comment? Fill me in please. The link isn't working. n/t

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

Armstead

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Jan-06-08 09:19 PM
Response to Original message

47. She called Obama "too liberal"? Please explain.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top

DU AdBot (1000+ posts)

Wed May 01st 2024, 11:12 PM
Response to Original message

Advertisements [?]

Top

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.