Morning.

Blue Texan!

Hey Blue Texan!

Too slow

Howdy.

bush-lite, more commonly known as the clintons, are not the answer. they are part of the problem.

don’t be pussy, vote for kooch.

They’ll say ANYTHING. I’ve had enough of this.

Classic Clintonian triangulation.

He thought we needed to take some sort of action to nail down the Iraqi WMD question, but didn’t like the way Bush was going about it. When faced with the choice of supporting or opposing Bush’s war in 2002, he split the difference.

When he thought things were going well, he claimed to have supported taking action in Iraq. When he realized things were going poorly, suddenly his memories about all of his reservations came flooding back.

I know a lot of people who’ve gone through this mental process.

As you might imagine, the Big Dawg’s position on Iraq is classic Clintonian trianglulation:

At a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in June 2002, Clinton said unequivocally that Saddam Hussein “has laboratories working to produce chemical and biological weapons.” He then asked himself — and answered for himself — a series of questions about what it all meant. “So would it be a good idea if [Saddam] weren’t there? And were replaced by someone committed to a responsible course with regard to weapons of mass destruction? Yes. Would it be a good idea if the people of Iraq weren’t siding with him, since he’s a murderer and a thug? Yes. Should we unilaterally attack him? Well, that depends.”

Elaborating later in response to a question, Clinton said: “First of all, there are all kinds of logistical problems with a full-scale military invasion if that’s what we want to do … But it clearly could be done, and it wouldn’t be that much [of a] problem if you could take the resources away from other things and you want to spend a fortune, you could do that. I just believe, looking down the road, the most important thing is to get our priorities in order. I don’t have any use for Saddam Hussein. And I’ve already told you: I think he’s got the labs up and going. And he kicked the inspectors out. So he’s in violation of U.N. rules. And they are actually doing bad things there; I’m convinced of it. But I think what you have to ask yourself is, in what order do we have to deal with this? He has no missiles to put warheads on that would reach us. The only missile he’s ever used [was] on his neighbors … and he used mustard gas on his own people … but he fired some Scuds into Israel after he was attacked in the Gulf War. So what I think is, A, let’s … make the most intense possible efforts to build a legitimate peace process and have diminishing of the violence in the Middle East between the Arabs, the Palestinians and the Israelis. B, is look at what our options are, and try to find a way to do whatever we do with as much of a coalition as possible, and not unilaterally. Without giving up the right to take unilateral action if the intelligence indicates it’s the right thing to do. That’s basically what I think we ought to do. But the most important thing I have to say is hear the right message coming out of the Arab summit, show them that we heard them, emphasize getting a peace process in the Middle East first.”

The earliest comment from the big dog on Iraq that I remember was “I wouldn’t have done it”. Can’t remember how soon after the invasion that remark was made.

Hillary’s vote was certainly calculated. If the damned thing was a great success and she voted against it- she could never be prez. If, on the other hand, it failed and she voted in favor- she still had a chance.

Since her vote was not going to make the difference in whether or not the authorization passed, she was free to take politics into consideration and she did.

At least that’s how I read it.

it pissed me off too when I saw the headline at Huffington yesterday …. I don’t remember him saying anything, nada, nothing of caution or critique about the invasion of Iraq

thankful for the tubes that documents it all

Oh, and how thoughtful of him to defend Bush against “the left.” Like we’ve had any power since FDR, and we need to be defended against. Screw off, Clintons.

Yet another reason I don’t support Hillary Clinton. This was nothing less than a clumsy attempt to rewrite history. Combined with her DLC credentials, her unwillingness to admit she was wrong on Iraq, and my general distaste for dynasties (the thought of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton… gives me the shivers), Hillary Clinton is the last Democratic candidate I want to support.

I have a friend who voted for Bush “just a little bit.”
Regret does a funny thing to the brain.

Biodun

That quote sounds pretty clear to me- “don’t invade- there are other ways of solving this problem.”

Just goes to show that almost all of what passes for the political leadership in our country believes that the past is mallable. Either that or they believe that we have the attention span of a goldfish(3 seconds).

This is why I think Team Billary will be a disaster — they want to party (and a party) like it’s 1996.

Oh, they show up, BlueTexan. At GHWB’s side. Enabling the Boy W. As they have done for the last 7 years. Bubba and Dubya…the step brothers Grimm.

rwcole @ 15:

Here’s the triangulation:

As Bush marched toward war, Clinton gave a speech on the legacy of Winston Churchill in England on March 8, 2003. On Iraq, he said that he thought Churchill would advise the United States not to “give up the force option … because there is a lot of chemical and biological material there. You can always kill someone tomorrow or next week or next month; we can’t bring them back to life; we can try one more time to get a schedule for disarmament.”

Eleven days later, on March 19, 2003, President Bush announced that war had begun.

In a speech the next week,” Clinton said that he expected that “this conflict in Iraq will not last long,” and that while people may have “different feelings about the facts of how it came about,” it was time to pray for the troops and the president “who has to make the calls.”

“This was a hard case,” Clinton said. “You could argue this, flat or round, up or down. I personally think it’s very important to get rid of the chemical and biological stocks in Iraq. But I think it’s also important that America be a leading force for bringing the world together. There are plenty of people out there trying to tear it apart. And so, I wouldn’t be too upset about that. We just need to get this business over with, get rid of those chemical and biological weapons, and get back to the business of creating the 21st century world we want.”

In the ensuing days and weeks, Clinton said that he “disagreed” with France’s decision to stay out of the war and sympathized with Tony Blair’s ultimate decision to get in.

(Same link as my 9.)

Ed White @ 13

Yet another reason I don’t support Hillary Clinton. This was nothing less than a clumsy attempt to rewrite history. Combined with her DLC credentials, her unwillingness to admit she was wrong on Iraq, and my general distaste for dynasties (the thought of Bush=Clinton=Bush=Clinton… gives me the shivers), Hillary Clinton is the last Democratic candidate I want to support.

Fixed.

Ed White @ 13

Yet another reason I don’t support Hillary Clinton. This was nothing less than a clumsy attempt to rewrite history.

Agreed. We need to move on. The days of “didn’t inhale / definition-of-’is‘” should be tossed in the ditch.

Bio

Sounds like in the first quote, Clinton was advising against going to war- because there were other ways of dealing with the issue.

In the second quote, after the war had already started he was saying “Well one might have a different opinion about what should be done- but our troops are goin in so we should support the effort.”

The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off. The Republicans suck up to their base in the most shameless manner, but does any Democrat pay even lip service to us, the most passionate, involved segment of our party?

More and more, I’m inclined to vote for Dennis Kucinich. He may never be President, but at least he talks the talk.

See, this is why I don’t like the Clintons. Everything is a political calculation. Word games to try to gloss over past mistakes.

There’s no concern for America there, just personal ambition.

I sure hope somebody other than Hillary wins the Dem nomination. Cause if she wins, I’ll have to seriously consider voting Republican and hoping that Dem majorities in the House and senate keep things in line.

Boxturtle(And I do NOT want to do that)

Here’s the only thing that would work for me: speaking precisely about not invading Iran. In other words, I would be willing to accept the idea that they made a mistake if and only if it was clear they learned from that mistake. President Clinton’s statement doesn’t do that for me.

Lots of people don’t favor Hillary- me included- but if she wins the nomination, I’ll work my ass off for her. The alternative is not acceptable—Goopers pickin judges for another eight years.

I am NOT a Clinton supporter, but I feel like I remember Big Dawg Clinton saying like, get Osama first. . . Will try to dig up something and see if it matches my memory. (Given memory is a strange and malleable thing.)

O/T -

So, Asscroft says waterboarding is OK, and that he would undergo it.

Prove it, motherfucker.

rwcole @ 26

Lots of people don’t favor Hillary- me included- but if she wins the nomination, I’ll work my ass off for her. The alternative is not acceptable—Goopers pickin judges for another eight years.

The Goopers are scary enough this year to make any progressive want to stand at a polling place rain or snow or beating hot sun this year.

Good Morning Blue Texan and Pups.

I haven’t had much time for the toobz lately, but I’ve really enjoyed your posts, BT, and plan to return to catch all of them when I can.

I spec’ I’m going to take some heat by saying anything, but I was just EPU’d below with relevant thots from a different angle. So I’m bringing them up here, fwiw. Fire away, dawgs. I’ve got tough hide. *g*
…
EPU’d downstairs & relevant here:

I’ve been heartened at the anger and interest out there in the populace. My major fears are that people will get so-o-o angry and frustrated, that an abundance of negative emotion will tip them over into a feeling of hopelessness, and they will not bother to vote.

We MUST encourage, enable, badger, whatever-it-takes, get these angry people to vote!

Another worry: that the repubbles will be successful in their nasty little efforts to get people to think, “Everyone does it. Throw ALL the bums out.” I think that sort of feeling, if it spreads, is alarming and dangerous. We should nip it in the bud wherever we can, however we can, even if it’s just by talking one-on-one with the overly-wrought negative folk we encounter.

We MUST have as many GOOD incumbents as possible re-elected. Washington is going to need their experience to counteract the power of the K-Street machine. Translation: Would you rather Lott run the country from capitol hill or K St., or NOT. AT. ALL? We need to de-fuse &/or dilute influence like his.

Rahm aside, we need to stay within the Democratic Party, when and if at all possible.

Yes, OKK. I luvs ya dearly, but if it does come down to Hill. vs. a repubble, please please please admit you’ll hold yer nose & vote, or at least hush about her till the electin’s done.

[go ahead, OKK. SMACK me across the forehead now & get it over with. *cringes*]

We GET it, o.k. OKK? But what you’re saying can be picked up as ever-so-much more cannon fodder by the repubbles. Please please don’t give them that on a silver platter. Perfection ain’t in the cards in politics, EVER. We gotta go with the best we kin git, eh?! Yes, it’s that important to bend just a bit if we must, for the greater prize.

As for Rahm, and mebbe Chuckie Schu if he doesn’t behave, I kinda like War On War Off’s delightful vignette from dear Molly Ivins (#68 directly downstairs at CHS’s post), heh.

Disclaimer: all the above under my moniker are just random thots from an idgit. Ignore at will, or at yer peril – whatever. I shall keep marching anyway.

- born stubborn…. ;->

rwcole @ 26

Lots of people don’t favor Hillary- me included- but if she wins the nomination, I’ll work my ass off for her. The alternative is not acceptable—Goopers pickin judges for another eight years.

And that is the ONLY reason I might support her. Reluctantly. And only because the current senate seems to have surrendered to Bush.

Boxturtle(Someday, I hope to vote FOR someone rather than vote against their opponent)

chrisc @ 14

I have a friend who voted for Bush “just a little bit.”
Regret does a funny thing to the brain.

heh, as in “just a little bit pregs?” gotcha *g*

I support Edwards, but if Hillary gets the nomination I’ll hold my nose and vote for her. I’ve never voted Repug in my life, local, state, or national, and ain’t no way in hell I’m gonna change that.

Both Clinton’s can go to hell they are both Repbulcians in practice, just not the fire and brimstone type.

Here is Clinton’s side of the story.

link

I think he was trying to split the difference but it is unusual for a ex-President to undercut the President on issues of “national security.”

-ck- @ 17

This is why I think Team Billary will be a disaster — they want to party (and a party) like it’s 1996.

like we don’t have a disaster NOW???

perspective, people….

It really is just a bloody game to them.

Biodun @ 33

I support Edwards, but if Hillary gets the nomination I’ll hold my nose and vote for her. I’ve never voted Repug in my life, local, state, or national, and ain’t no way in hell I’m gonna change that.

I voted for Holy Joe in 2000. I apologize.

Hillary got ratings on her voting record of “zero” from most gooper groups. She is a long ways from a gooper. She got very high ratings on her record from most liberal groups.

I’d rather have Rudy for President than Hillary. It would kickstart a revoluton instead of postposting it again.

“Ashcroft Willing to be Waterboarded”

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/…..erboarded/

The sound you hear is Cheney, Bush, Gonzales and Card smacking their heads.

hayduke

That’s what many said about Nixon.

Nixon led to Ford which led to one term of Carter- that was the extent of the “revolution”.

I don’t think that approach works- historically.

More of the Big Dawg:

A year later [in 2004] — as polls showed that a majority of Americans disapproved of the way Bush was handling Iraq — Time asked Clinton if he thought the president had been right to invade. His answer:

“You know, I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over. I don’t believe he went in there for oil. We didn’t go in there for imperialist or financial reasons. We went in there because he bought the Wolfowitz-Cheney analysis that the Iraqis would be better off, we could shake up the authoritarian Arab regimes in the Middle East, and our leverage to make peace between the Palestinians and Israelis would be increased.

“At the moment the U.N. inspectors were kicked out in ‘98, this is the proper language: there were substantial quantities of botulinum and aflatoxin, as I recall, some bioagents, I believe there were those, and VX and ricin, chemical agents, unaccounted for. Keep in mind, that’s all we ever had to work on. We also thought there were a few missiles, some warheads, and maybe a very limited amount of nuclear laboratory capacity.

“After 9/11, let’s be fair here, if you had been president, you’d think, ‘Well, this fellow bin Laden just turned these three airplanes full of fuel into weapons of mass destruction,’ right? Arguably they were super-powerful chemical weapons. Think about it that way. So, you’re sitting there as president, you’re reeling in the aftermath of this, so, yeah, you want to go get bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, ‘Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I’ve got to do that.’

“That’s why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for. So I thought the President had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, ‘Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein let us finish the inspection process.’ You couldn’t responsibly ignore [the possibility that] a tyrant had these stocks. I never really thought he’d [use them]. What I was far more worried about was that he’d sell this stuff or give it away … So that’s why I thought Bush did the right thing to go back. When you’re the president, and your country has just been through what we had, you want everything to be accounted for.”

So was the war worth the cost?

“It’s a judgment that no one can make definitively yet,” Clinton told Time in that 2004 interview. “I would not have done it until after Hans Blix finished his job. Having said that, over 600 of our people have died since the conflict was over. We’ve got a big stake now in making it work. I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn’t agree with the timing of the attack. I think if you have a pluralistic, secure, stable Iraq, the people of Iraq will be better off, and it might help the process of internal reform in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. I think right now, getting rid of Saddam’s tyranny, ironically, has made Iraq more vulnerable to terrorism coming in from the outside. But any open society is going to be more vulnerable than any tyranny to that.”

Come to your own conclusions.

(Same link as the others.)

I really don’t understand how Bill C can be so nice and polite to people who have done their best to put him (and his family) in h*ll for the last twelve years, to the point where he won’t even say, straight out, that they are wrong about anything, even when it’s clear that they’ve been lying throught their bleached-and-straightened teeth.

Don’t like Hillary, but will vote for her if she gets nominated. I’d prefer Edwards or Dodd.
Don’t like Kucinich, he’s way too fluffy for me – anyone who talks, even speculatively, about Paul as a potential running mate is off my list.

Pythagoras has nothing on the Clintons. They are incommensurable.

rwcole @ 39

Hillary got ratings on her voting record of “zero” from most gooper groups. She is a long ways from a gooper. She got very high ratings on her record from most liberal groups.

I just wish I could easily do a song and dance at the polling places as I did for Lamont. “A vote for Hillary is a vote against George Bush”(?) sounds compromised. It screws with my sense of integrity.

“The things that I can survive, if it were necessary to do them to me, I would do,” he said.”

Ashcroft of waterboarding- not exactly eager to get strapped down.

It’d be much better for progressive moral if Edwards or Dodd got the nomination IMHO.

Re Al Hubbard resigning as chairman of the National Economic Council now that the economy is tanking from a couple of threads below, he was apparently for privatization of Social Security, against the bill on SCHIP, and for taxing healthcare benefits as income. He was in short a thug, one of many that the Bush Administration appointed and who lurk throughout the government doing their best to sabotage the goals of the agencies and departments where they work.

rwcole @ 39

Hillary got ratings on her voting record of “zero” from most gooper groups. She is a long ways from a gooper. She got very high ratings on her record from most liberal groups.

That is a rather awkward fact for the Hillary Gooper-lite meme.

hayduke @ 40

I’d rather have Rudy for President than Hillary. It would kickstart a revoluton instead of postposting it again.

Ghouliani as President would be very bad. And, he would ruthlessly suppress any attempts at “revolution” in a manner even Bu’ush would lack the balls to undertake.

Look, the Clintons are hawks. Now, it’s okay to be a hawk, but don’t be a hawk and say you’re a dove, when everyone can plainly see you’re a hawk.

hayduke @ 40

I’d rather have Rudy for President than Hillary. It would kickstart a revoluton instead of postposting it again.

You’ve got to be kidding…

Calling Henry Waxman, Mr Rove is on line 2

http://blog.washingtonpost.com…..ut_of.html

Bill Clinton, wanker of the day.

War On War Off @ 37

It really is just a bloody game to them.

I’m not thrilled with them either, but I just flat-out do. not. agree. with you on this point.

It is possible for a skilled candidate to chuckle and assume a confident countenance, and still be very very serious indeed, inside as well as looking into the future.
IF it comes down to Hill, I hope I hope I hope she fits into that category.

Face it. None of us knows for sure how ANY of the candidates would do in what looks to be a wickedly difficult situation left behind by the present administration. I have tremendous concerns also about electing a person competent to tackle the job.

Steve-AR @ 50

rwcole @ 39

Hillary got ratings on her voting record of “zero” from most gooper groups. She is a long ways from a gooper. She got very high ratings on her record from most liberal groups.

That is a rather awkward fact for the Hillary Gooper-lite meme.

I expect it would be a different story if she were a registered Republican instead of a DINO.

not to put too fine a point on it, but ast has been said here and elsewhere, bill clinton was the finest republican president of my lifetime.

why anyone even modestly left of center should feel anything like appreciation for the man is beyond me.

and hillary makes, well, even less sense.

mui @ 27

I am NOT a Clinton supporter, but I feel like I remember Big Dawg Clinton saying like, get Osama first. . . Will try to dig up something and see if it matches my memory. (Given memory is a strange and malleable thing.)

Is this it?

I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I have strongly supported the efforts in Afghanistan and I would be happy if they would send more troops there because that’s where the real problem is. But we cannot forever be strong abroad unless we’re getting better at home. Forming a more perfect union. There are things you’re supposed to do.

When the Pope died, Chimpy sent his dad and the Big Dawg to the funeral to represent the US, but not Carter, the only president to have met the Pope when he visited the US. The excuse was that there was not enough room on the plane.

Shorter Bill Clinton and in much the same vein: I did not have war with that Iraq.

Well yes, If Hillary were a gooper- she would probably vote with the goopers- but she’s not- and she doesn’t.

Shorter Bill Clinton and in much the same vein: I did not have war with that Iraq.

Damnit, that would’ve been a great headline.

This hasn’t drawn much comment: Hillary’s Secret Weapon: Colin Powell?

Steve-AR @ 59

mui @ 27

I am NOT a Clinton supporter, but I feel like I remember Big Dawg Clinton saying like, get Osama first. . . Will try to dig up something and see if it matches my memory. (Given memory is a strange and malleable thing.)

Is this it?

I supported the President when he asked the Congress for authority to stand up against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. I have strongly supported the efforts in Afghanistan and I would be happy if they would send more troops there because that’s where the real problem is. But we cannot forever be strong abroad unless we’re getting better at home. Forming a more perfect union. There are things you’re supposed to do.

Heh. That quote makes me sweat.

Yeah, great. Let’s get Powell to do another PPT at the UN.

This is a man who plays to win–and he wins. He wins at cards, for example. And he thinks ahead–to that moment when, for instance, he would need to be seen as having been plausibly prescient about the gains and losses of invading Iraq before the deed was done (knowing full well that the deed would indeed be done). And now he collects on his play (since he cannot be credibly numbered among the warmongers).

For what it’s worth, I’ve come to admire the speed and skill of the man’s calculations: they won him a presidential nomination, two terms in office, and a daily reprieve from the assassination-attempts of his busy, bumbling detractors (none of whom prospered in opposing him). And now he’s the most powerful politician in the country, if not the entire world.

And while none of this may be interesting, the fact remains that he kept us out of wars–in the very same way that Eisenhower kept us out of wars (and, like Eisenhower, he also kept the military budget under a semblance of control… And while we’re at it, let’s not forget that Eisenhower, graduating at the middle of his class at West Point, was by far the most proficient of poker players in those parts).

I find this all very admirable–but then I’m neither a soldier, a politician, nor a card-player.

Blue Texan @ 66

Yeah, great. Let’s get Powell to do another PPT at the UN.

I would have thought the same factor would have him hiding his head in the sand.

Biodun @ 53

hayduke @ 40

I’d rather have Rudy for President than Hillary. It would kickstart a revoluton instead of postposting it again.

You’ve got to be kidding…

That was my visceral reaction as well. And, flip talk about “revolution” ignores the potential for bloody catastrophe.

Blue Texan @ 63

Shorter Bill Clinton and in much the same vein: I did not have war with that Iraq.

Damnit, that would’ve been a great headline.

Next time, Gadget, next time.

mui @ 38

– just had a flashback to a Seinfeld episode, heh.

“OMG! I’m so sorry! REALLY sorry!”

Hi. My name is Adie. Thanks for caring enough to make that admission. We’re all recovering in some fashion or other here, from this or that.

-um- but, please don’t ever do that again! ‘kay? ;->

And how will anti-war Democratic voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere feel about Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion that she wants one of the architects of the Iraq war to serve as a goodwill ambassador?

I don’t care if Powell had a good reputation once. The UN presentation in my view was a major strike out. Goodwill embarrassment presents fake mobile nuke labs again? No!

rwcole @ 22

Bio

Sounds like in the first quote, Clinton was advising against going to war- because there were other ways of dealing with the issue.

In the second quote, after the war had already started he was saying “Well one might have a different opinion about what should be done- but our troops are goin in so we should support the effort.”

my bold.

i don’t see what the fucking issue was.

Wow. Big arrest of terror suspects in Saudi Arabia.

Adie @ 70

mui @ 38

– just had a flashback to a Seinfeld episode, heh.

“OMG! I’m so sorry! REALLY sorry!”

Hi. My name is Adie. Thanks for caring enough to make that admission. We’re all recovering in some fashion or other here, from this or that.

-um- but, please don’t ever do that again! ‘kay? ;->

‘kay! *sob, tears*

Hugh @ 61

Shorter Bill Clinton and in much the same vein: I did not have war with that Iraq.

707

All this just makes Dodd look better. Someone remind me again why he isn’t electable?

Hey, gang:

I just thought I’ll say that this is a great discussion on this thread. Different opinions but everyone’s polite. No nastiness. Just thought I’d say that. Jane and Christy would be quite proud…

Here’s something from a BBC 2004 Interview relevant to Clinton’s position on Iraq.

” I didn’t have any profound difference with the (Bush Administration) policy until it was decided to invade Iraq before the UN Weapons Inspection process was finished because Hans Blix I have a very high regard for, he was very tough on Saddam. He was very explicit when they weren’t fully cooperating and I thought we should get a chance to finish.

I also always felt that Bin Laden and Al Qaeda were a far, far bigger threat and in the early days I worried about whether we had enough troops in Afghanistan and whether we wouldn’t weaken our ability to stabilise President Karzai’s regime, prevent the Taliban and some
of the opium growing warlords from resorting their, restoring their power. So that’s kind of where I differed.

DIMBLEBY: So what you’re saying is you were opposed to the invasion of Iraq?

CLINTON: What I am saying is I believe that we should have led the.. I would have supported the invasion of Iraq, whether or not we’d had UN opposition, if the UN inspectors had finished their job and Han Blix had said they won’t cooperate.

The point is we were there under the authority of the UN resolution that was about the weapons inspections so I believe that we should have let them finish. Now we are where we are, an Amer.. you know, I’m an American first and the minute the President wants the investigation( ? invasion?) I was for the troops and the mission and I did believe that when it was over we should have immediately moved to internationalise it, finally that has been done. We’re moving to give the sovereignty back to the Iraqis and that we have a new UN resolution for internationalising it, I think that they’re moving er, in the right direction now. We still got a lot of tough days ahead, I mean, you know, but I think basically we’re moving in the right direction now.

Adie @ 71

mui @ 38

– just had a flashback to a Seinfeld episode, heh.

“OMG! I’m so sorry! REALLY sorry!”

Hi. My name is Adie. Thanks for caring enough to make that admission. We’re all recovering in some fashion or other here, from this or that.

-um- but, please don’t ever do that again! ‘kay? ;->

Oh wait, are you saying don’t vote that way again or never make an admission. I love testifyin. But vote for Holy Joe again? I’d rather chew my hand off first.

Biodun @ 60

When the Pope died, Chimpy sent his dad and the Big Dawg to the funeral to represent the US, but not Carter, the only president to have met the Pope when he visited the US. The excuse was that there was not enough room on the plane.

Protocol is not Georgie’s long suit. He’s such a donkey.

BobbyG @ 69

Biodun @ 53

You’ve got to be kidding…

That was my visceral reaction as well. And, flip talk about “revolution” ignores the potential for bloody catastrophe.

And don’t forget about at least one S Ct. judge probably waiting for retirement.

1,672 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Blue Texan:

It’s time to cleanse the Democratic Party of the Clintons…call Mrs. Clinton on her pro-war record and take the Big Dog down in Iowa by callin’ Al Gore in to campaign for John Edwards. A twofer…we got both of the bastards in 1992 so let’s get rid of ‘em in 2008!!

And Citizen rwcole…”if Hilary were a gooper-she would probably vote with the goopers- but she’s not-and she doesn’t.” So that makes her a what…a Republicrat, a vacuous stuffed skirt, a late night talk show host, what? It sure doesn’t make her a political leader or a person to take the reigns of power in the country’s most dangerous hour.

KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T BELIEVE A THING THEY TELL YA AND ONLY HALF A WHAT THEY SHOW YA!!

I didn’t have any profound difference with the (Bush Administration) policy until it was decided to invade Iraq before the UN Weapons Inspection process was finished

this from the guy who pulled the inspectors so he could bomb iraq in a failed attempt at “regime change”

i know it’s not fair to senator clinton – but one of the reason i can’t support her is that i so despise bill clinton.

I got fooled by this bullshit artist when he first ran for election, and he was certainly preferable to Bush 1.

After NAFTA I was no longer fooled, and voted for Nader when Lying Bill was up for re-election. I don’t know why his eyes are blue: he’s so full of shit, they should be brown by now.

a repost of my opinion on this from downstairs and I stand by it

I guess I am among the few that does not equate “the right to go attack” with attacking prematurely

both clintons gave bush the right to attack if the inspectors said there were wmd’s, bush attacked without those wmd’s

congress NEVER gave bush the right to attack pall mall without evidence and bush never got the evidence and never got the OK from EITHER Clinton

mui @ 72

And how will anti-war Democratic voters in Iowa, New Hampshire and elsewhere feel about Mrs. Clinton’s suggestion that she wants one of the architects of the Iraq war to serve as a goodwill ambassador?

I don’t care if Powell had a good reputation once. The UN presentation in my view was a major strike out. Goodwill embarrassment presents fake mobile nuke labs again? No!

truly, history will remember him as a bookend to adlai stevenson, when stevenson’s performance in the united nations swung the world to support the u.s. position concerning cuba, a moment illuminating the power and utility of the u.n. as a forum.

colin powell will be shown to have been the who, where and when behind the accelerating slide in world opinion of the U.S.
he showed that not only did we not believe in the things we claimed to, but that he and the u.s. were willing to be shameless in our fraud.

I’d rather chew my hand off first.
You made me laugh.
Holy Joe = Coyote Ugly.

egregious @ 69

Blue Texan @ 63

Shorter Bill Clinton and in much the same vein: I did not have war with that Iraq.

Damnit, that would’ve been a great headline.

Next time, Gadget, next time.

Awesome line. Maybe KO will pick it up. but would that make you a scab? ;)

It’s time to cleanse the Democratic Party of the Clintons…call Mrs. Clinton on her pro-war record and take the Big Dog down in Iowa by callin’ Al Gore in to campaign for John Edwards.

Yeah, that worked so well for Dean.

Look, again. And I really mean this. Honest hawkishness on Iraq, while I disagree with it, is much preferred to bullshitting after it’s gone to hell and claiming you never had war with that Iraq.

Re: mui at #38

– just had a flashback to a Seinfeld episode, heh.

“OMG! I’m so sorry! REALLY sorry!”

Hi. My name is Adie. Thanks for caring enough to make that admission. We’re all recovering in some fashion or other here, from this or that.

-um- but, please don’t ever do that again! ‘kay? ;->

[good golly molly! Dear Kind Mods, could you please erase my mess at #71? preview is my friend, rinse, repeat *blush*]

I am so weary of these two.Bill lost his luster for me when he became GeorgeHW’s best friend and to have Barbara call him another son? Gag me.Now he comes out and twists this around? Oh well she has gotten away with this and so will he.They are a major source of the problems in the country–and we will be well rid of them.Sorry am a progressive and see nothing at all from them but a lust for power.
And the policies they support ?Not to mention if in office she will NEVER do anything to hold W accountable for anything.

You know, all this said, I would rather have the Clintons shoot themselves in the foot than give the psycho-goobers the satisfaction of any victorious strategery move.

I really do want a better choice to emerge in the lead for Dems than HRC or BO. JMHO

Loo Hoo @ 73

Wow. Big arrest of terror suspects in Saudi Arabia.

“Over 200 al-Qaida linked suspects belonging to different cells and involved in different plots against the kingdom have been arrested in recent months [emphasis mine] in the kingdom’s largest anti-terror sweep to date, the Saudi Interior Ministry announced Wednesday…”

In “recent months” but it gets screaming headline play just today. “Big arrest”? Sounds like a lot of little ones.

Loo Hoo @ 73

Wow. Big arrest of terror suspects in Saudi Arabia.

Couple different points this brings to mind…

Funny there would be so many terrorists in Saudi Arabia, I thought they were all in Iraq (sent by Iran)?

Funny, I thought you had to go to war to fight terrorists… These Saudi people seem to be doing it with “police action”. Will someone tell them 9/11 changed all that, we use armies to hunt criminals now.

Since the Saudis are Bush allies, this is his win too! Congrats to Bush on his “big win” in the war on terror are in order, right? Right?

Bill sounds like a retired, pension-secure General trying to sweep his complicity under the rug.

Big fan of Clinton, voted for him twice, but file this under “why we were glad you left the first time.”

I remember hoping that both of the Clintons would say something — anything

I remember, vividly, having the same reaction.

Steve-AR @ 50

rwcole @ 39

Hillary got ratings on her voting record of “zero” from most gooper groups. She is a long ways from a gooper. She got very high ratings on her record from most liberal groups.

That is a rather awkward fact for the Hillary Gooper-lite meme.

Not really. Voter ratings notoriously don’t tell the whole story. Lieberman’s vote against Alito, for example, can be chosen as a good vote while his vote for cloture, the vote that really mattered, may not be counted at all.

With regard to Hillary, how many of her votes were similarly cosmetic? It can often be difficult to tease out. Where you can get a sense of this is on bills like the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran which she voted for. Another way you can an idea of where she is coming from is on the bills and floor fights where she led the fight. I can’t think of any where this happened.

What I am left with is a candidate who backed the Iraq war initially and for years afterwards, who continues to refuse to apologize for that support, who goes along with the crowd on dimwitted warmongery like Kyl-Lieberman, who is tightly connected to corporations and the DLC, and who has in her first Senate term exercised leadership on nothing. So yes, I can say she is more DINO than Democrat.

Keith and David Shuster always pick up memes of the day from FDL…

Katie @ 91

I am so weary of these two.Bill lost his luster for me when he became GeorgeHW’s best friend and to have Barbara call him another son? Gag me.Now he comes out and twists this around? Oh well she has gotten away with this and so will he.They are a major source of the problems in the country–and we will be well rid of them.Sorry am a progressive and see nothing at all from them but a lust for power.
And the policies they support ?Not to mention if in office she will NEVER do anything to hold W accountable for anything.

I forget which interview on TDS it was but I remember Jon Stewart commenting:

“When I look at that photo (GHWB with Bill) it’s like they’re saying, you know when George is done, Hillary’d like a turn. Yeah, and I think Jeb would like it too.”

words to that nauseating effect.

Morning Blue Texan. Thanks for refreshing our memory on this one.

Loo Hoo @ 74

Wow. Big arrest of terror suspects in Saudi Arabia.

They are trying to cover up the fact that they released 1500 Terrorists from prison because “they had repented”.

Hillary may be a lot of things..but vacuous she isn’t. She didn’t get to Wellesley and Yale by being vacuous. I met her parents many years ago, they were nice people who didn’t have the money or influence to give Hillary a free ride…

I swear, I saw Clinton on some talkingheads show ca. 2002 or 2003 and he was actually talking about how dangerous Saddam was. I can’t source it, but I do recall thinking he was mouthing all the right Bushie talking points.

BobbyG @ 94

Loo Hoo @ 73

Wow. Big arrest of terror suspects in Saudi Arabia.

“Over 200 al-Qaida linked suspects belonging to different cells and involved in different plots against the kingdom have been arrested in recent months [emphasis mine] in the kingdom’s largest anti-terror sweep to date, the Saudi Interior Ministry announced Wednesday…”

In “recent months” but it gets screaming headline play just today. “Big arrest”? Sounds like a lot of little ones.

Makes you wonder what ELSE is going to happen today, eh?

mui @ 80

Adie @ 71

mui @ 38

– just had a flashback to a Seinfeld episode, heh.

“OMG! I’m so sorry! REALLY sorry!”

Hi. My name is Adie. Thanks for caring enough to make that admission. We’re all recovering in some fashion or other here, from this or that.

-um- but, please don’t ever do that again! ‘kay? ;->

Oh wait, are you saying don’t vote that way again or never make an admission. I love testifyin. But vote for Holy Joe again? I’d rather chew my hand off first.

Eek. No self mutilation allowed at the Lake. Please! I want-cha healthy, hearty & happy.
You’re good to fly solo now on your own ethical path, and mebbe hep me clear up my use of the language thingies. ‘kay?

1,672 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Blue Texan:

“Yeah, that worked so well for Dean.”

And you think that Al Gore doesn’t have more clout now than in 2004??!! Good God man…if ya wanna draw the distinction between the good and the Clintons send Al Gore out on the same track as Big Dog, he’d eat ‘im alive!!

KEEP THE FAITH AND DON’T BE TIMID…NOT EVERYONE LIVES IN TEXAS!!

rwcole @ 10

The earliest comment from the big dog on Iraq that I remember was “I wouldn’t have done it”. Can’t remember how soon after the invasion that remark was made.

Hillary’s vote was certainly calculated. If the damned thing was a great success and she voted against it- she could never be prez. If, on the other hand, it failed and she voted in favor- she still had a chance.

Since her vote was not going to make the difference in whether or not the authorization passed, she was free to take politics into consideration and she did.

At least that’s how I read it.

You need to explain paragraph #2.

Steve-AR @ 103

Hillary may be a lot of things..but vacuous she isn’t. She didn’t get to Wellesley and Yale by being vacuous. I met her parents many years ago, they were nice people who didn’t have the money or influence to give Hillary a free ride…

I’m not going to vote against her in the primaries cuz of her cleavage or anything…

perris @ 86

a repost of my opinion on this from downstairs and I stand by it

I guess I am among the few that does not equate “the right to go attack” with attacking prematurely

both clintons gave bush the right to attack if the inspectors said there were wmd’s, bush attacked without those wmd’s

congress NEVER gave bush the right to attack pall mall without evidence and bush never got the evidence and never got the OK from EITHER Clinton

you have company. ;->

– just had a flashback to a Seinfeld episode, heh.

“OMG! I’m so sorry! REALLY sorry!”

I live and work with teenagers. That statement there is a direct translation for “Oh Shit! I got caught!”

Mary @ 98

I remember hoping that both of the Clintons would say something — anything

I remember, vividly, having the same reaction.

I remember saying the same thing about EVERYONE

very few people (except of course us liberal bloggers) said the persident was making shit up

and clinton was a president, he knows more then anyone that the sitting president has information nobody else has

until bush proved he was a despot it was NOT up to bill to say the president was lying, the president might NOT have been lying as far as bill was concerned

sorry, you’re piling on bill and hilary for crap.

I am NO opologist for bill and I hold him acountable for corporate consolidation of media, I hold him responsible for exporting our industry and I hold HIM responsible for the whurlizter and i am NOopologist for the war

so I am NO opologist for clinton but THIS issue he got right, any other president would have gotten permission to attack “as a last resort” and any other president would have had to remain silent about the information a sitting president may or may not have

until that sitting president shows he is a despot and who’s interest’s are not the interests of the country

THEN they can speak

Blue Texan @ 90

Look, again. And I really mean this. Honest hawkishness on Iraq, while I disagree with it, is much preferred to bullshitting after it’s gone to hell and claiming you never had war with that Iraq.

agreed.

i am so sick of being lied to.

imo, when a politician lies to the public they are saying that they don’t believe in an informed electorate or self government. it is inherently an elitist position – and i abhor it.

IrishJim @ 103

Loo Hoo @ 74

Wow. Big arrest of terror suspects in Saudi Arabia.

They are trying to cover up the fact that they released 1500 Terrorists from prison because “they had repented”.

Could you elaborate on this? Whenever I hear that a country — Israel comes to mind — is releasing or negotiating the release of some big fat round number of “terrorists” in the hundreds, I think “hostages” or “political opponents”. If they are really dangerous why risk releasing them?

Not really. Voter ratings notoriously don’t tell the whole story. Lieberman’s vote against Alito, for example, can be chosen as a good vote while his vote for cloture, the vote that really mattered, may not be counted at all.

Ah yes, mention the shell vote trick Lieberman perfected and I see fireworks. Barack Obama has that kind of game I think, maybe not as bad, but where was he on Kyl/Lieberman? Really what was sooo important that he didn’t bother to show up?

perris @ 113

until bush proved he was a despot

elections. 2002.

I have a confession. It’s Confession Wednesday, right?

I voted Perot, and I’m not ashamed of it.

I wouldn’t say proud, though. :)

kdh22 @ 118

I have a confession. It’s Confession Wednesday, right?

I voted Perot, and I’m not ashamed of it.

I wouldn’t say proud, though. :)

*pat on back*

selise @ 114

Blue Texan @ 90

Look, again. And I really mean this. Honest hawkishness on Iraq, while I disagree with it, is much preferred to bullshitting after it’s gone to hell and claiming you never had war with that Iraq.

agreed.

i am so sick of being lied to.

imo, when a politician lies to the public they are saying that they don’t believe in an informed electorate or self government. it is inherently an elitist position – and i abhor it.

here’s an interesting question: how far could a politician get making such a statement like “I was wrong — here’s why i did it, and why i won’t do it again”; and then showing through votes and speeches that he or she was speaking her true mind?

every “serious” person thinks that such candor is the height of naivete, a frank capra movie. but i bet the public would truly warm to any such pol.

selise @ 117

perris @ 113

until bush proved he was a despot

elections. 2002.

well, there is that after all

still, the clintons did NOT authorise this war, they authorised war if there was a demonstratable and impending danger, which there never was…the president initiated this attack making believe he had authority and he NEVER got authority, NEVER

Hugh @ 99

Steve-AR @ 50

That is a rather awkward fact for the Hillary Gooper-lite meme.

Not really. Voter ratings notoriously don’t tell the whole story. Lieberman’s vote against Alito, for example, can be chosen as a good vote while his vote for cloture, the vote that really mattered, may not be counted at all.

With regard to Hillary, how many of her votes were similarly cosmetic? It can often be difficult to tease out. Where you can get a sense of this is on bills like the Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran which she voted for. Another way you can an idea of where she is coming from is on the bills and floor fights where she led the fight. I can’t think of any where this happened.

What I am left with is a candidate who backed the Iraq war initially and for years afterwards, who continues to refuse to apologize for that support, who goes along with the crowd on dimwitted warmongery like Kyl-Lieberman, who is tightly connected to corporations and the DLC, and who has in her first Senate term exercised leadership on nothing. So yes, I can say she is more DINO than Democrat.

I have looked at a lot of voting records, I don’t find that Hillary does the CYA vote. She is rated #1 by Progressive Punch for voting against “corporate welfare”
She was one of the few Dems to vote against the Big Pharma welfare law..both times..despite getting big bucks from the Health lobby.

perris @ 121

selise @ 117

elections. 2002.

well, there is that after all

still, the clintons did NOT authorize this war, they authorized war if there was a demonstrable and impending danger, which there never was…the president initiated this attack making believe he had authority and he NEVER got authority, NEVER

now, contrast THAT with the kyle Lieberman authority and ANYONE that voted to give this president authority for ANY aggression after he’s PROVEN he is a madman is OFF THEIR FRIGGIN BIRD

and I hold Hillary accountable to THAT ridiculous vote

selise @ 84

I didn’t have any profound difference with the (Bush Administration) policy until it was decided to invade Iraq before the UN Weapons Inspection process was finished

this from the guy who pulled the inspectors so he could bomb iraq in a failed attempt at “regime change”

i know it’s not fair to senator clinton – but one of the reason i can’t support her is that i so despise bill clinton.

Selise- As I recall Saddam had already once before kicked out the UN inspectors. It was 4 years before they were allowed back in. And then Saddam started trying to hide documents and prevent them from inspecting certain sites.

There was an ultimatum given, with the head of the inspection teams to report if there was free and full access. That report contained major problems. Then and only then did Clinton ask the inspectors to be withdrawn.

http://www.defenselink.mil/new…..x?id=41731

I would have voted for Perot if not for his ears…*g*

mui @ 116

Not really. Voter ratings notoriously don’t tell the whole story. Lieberman’s vote against Alito, for example, can be chosen as a good vote while his vote for cloture, the vote that really mattered, may not be counted at all.

Ah yes, mention the shell vote trick Lieberman perfected and I see fireworks. Barack Obama has that kind of game I think, maybe not as bad, but where was he on Kyl/Lieberman? Really what was sooo important that he didn’t bother to show up?

my bold.

see yesterday’s thread on this very topic. several obama supporters said that obama didn’t know that the vote was going to be held when it was, and he couldn’t make it back to dc in time.

i spent 2 and a half hours going through the congressional record (see my comments here and here) and i think that’s bullshit. ‘course it wasn’t an exhaustive analysis – i’d need alot more than 2.5 hours for that, but at this point i’m not interested in putting any more time into it unless the obama supporters come back with some evidence to support their position.

Biodun @ 125

I would have voted for Perot if not for his ears…*g*

I would have voted for him if he didn’t remind me of that chicken guy with almost the same name

selise @ 84

I didn’t have any profound difference with the (Bush Administration) policy until it was decided to invade Iraq before the UN Weapons Inspection process was finished

this from the guy who pulled the inspectors so he could bomb iraq in a failed attempt at “regime change”

i know it’s not fair to senator clinton – but one of the reason i can’t support her is that i so despise bill clinton.

Thank you for retrieving that fact from the memory hole.

mui @ 116

Not really. Voter ratings notoriously don’t tell the whole story. Lieberman’s vote against Alito, for example, can be chosen as a good vote while his vote for cloture, the vote that really mattered, may not be counted at all.

Ah yes, mention the shell vote trick Lieberman perfected and I see fireworks. Barack Obama has that kind of game I think, maybe not as bad, but where was he on Kyl/Lieberman? Really what was sooo important that he didn’t bother to show up?

All of the vote rating sites that I look at give the specific votes on specific pieces of legislation, you just have to dig a little bit.

Can anyone name a single elected official who, in unequivocal terms, has denounced the war in Iraq as an evil act performed by an evil America? I could use some help on this one….

Blue Texan @ 89

It’s time to cleanse the Democratic Party of the Clintons…call Mrs. Clinton on her pro-war record and take the Big Dog down in Iowa by callin’ Al Gore in to campaign for John Edwards.

Yeah, that worked so well for Dean.

Look, again. And I really mean this. Honest hawkishness on Iraq, while I disagree with it, is much preferred to bullshitting after it’s gone to hell and claiming you never had war with that Iraq.

Al Gore is more popular now.

What is honest hawkishness on Iraq?

alabama @ 130

Can anyone name a single elected official who, in unequivocal terms, has denounced the war in Iraq as an evil act performed by an evil America? I could use some help on this one….

Saddam?

dmg @120:

The public would warm to him, but this isn’t about the public.

cinnamonape @ 124

selise @ 84

this from the guy who pulled the inspectors so he could bomb iraq in a failed attempt at “regime change”

i know it’s not fair to senator clinton – but one of the reason i can’t support her is that i so despise bill clinton.

Selise- As I recall Saddam had already once before kicked out the UN inspectors. It was 4 years before they were allowed back in. And then Saddam started trying to hide documents and prevent them from inspecting certain sites.

There was an ultimatum given, with the head of the inspection teams to report if there was free and full access. That report contained major problems. Then and only then did Clinton ask the inspectors to be withdrawn.

http://www.defenselink.mil/new…..x?id=41731

kabuki and fuckery from clinton. i will try to put something together later with links, etc so you can judge for yourself… (can’t right now, but if i forget, please feel free to remind me)

have you read scott ritter?

selise @ 126

mui @ 116

Ah yes, mention the shell vote trick Lieberman perfected and I see fireworks. Barack Obama has that kind of game I think, maybe not as bad, but where was he on Kyl/Lieberman? Really what was sooo important that he didn’t bother to show up?

my bold.

see yesterday’s thread on this very topic. several obama supporters said that obama didn’t know that the vote was going to be held when it was, and he couldn’t make it back to dc in time.

i spent 2 and a half hours going through the congressional record (see my comments here and here) and i think that’s bullshit. ‘course it wasn’t an exhaustive analysis – i’d need alot more than 2.5 hours for that, but at this point i’m not interested in putting any more time into it unless the obama supporters come back with some evidence to support their position.

The same with saying that vote ratings don’t mean anything if they don’t agree with a preconceived opinion.

oy, true voting confessions.
i voted for nader.
twice.

I hugged Perot once, at a rally in Olympia.

I didn’t mean to, but I was at the front of the crowd and the old ladies behind me really went nuts when Ross went by.

The old ladies knocked me down. (somethin hit me behind the kneecap) My falling on Mr. Perot was interpreted by him as a hug. I went with it.

He really is small.

1,672 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Steve-AR and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

“Hillary may be a lot of things but vacuous she isn’t.”

Vacuous: “1. Devoid of matter; empty…3. Devoid of substance or meaning; inane.”

In the context of rwcole’s statement that she would vote with the goopers if she were a gooper and with the dems as a dem, I think vacuous is charitable. Her unapologetic vote for the Iraq war and her complete sellout to the oligarchy – especially Rupert Murdock and the telecom money for a few million to the Clinton Library – and her inability to define herself as a Democrat beyond her membership in the DLC make “vacuous” the best she could hope for in an obituary.

KEEP THE FAITH NOT ALL FASCISTS CALL THEMSELVES REPUBLICANS!

as many others I have real issues with the Clintons. My primary vote will be for Edwards but if Sen Clinton wins I will work my ass off for her, The thought of any Republican with the power to appoint Supreme Court Justices, Attorneys General and so forth is abhorent to me. Since Reagan we have had a decimation of the middle class and will be paying for it for years.
Unfortunately what I’m reading a lot of is that if readers on this site don’t get their first choice theuy are abstaining from voting, thereby possibly giving the Republicans a good chance of winning again. Sometimes you just have to accept a small defeat to win the total war. Abdication is not the answer.

selise @ 113

Blue Texan @ 90

Look, again. And I really mean this. Honest hawkishness on Iraq, while I disagree with it, is much preferred to bullshitting after it’s gone to hell and claiming you never had war with that Iraq.

agreed.

i am so sick of being lied to.

imo, when a politician lies to the public they are saying that they don’t believe in an informed electorate or self government. it is inherently an elitist position – and i abhor it.

OMG, Selise, I soooo agree with you. They really think we really are dumb, or just treat us (the people) that way. We don’t have the big bucks, so we are not that important to them. The condescension and arrogance are unbearable. “I’ll just talk to you when I need your vote, then please go away.”

brendan @ 109

rwcole @ 10

The earliest comment from the big dog on Iraq that I remember was “I wouldn’t have done it”. Can’t remember how soon after the invasion that remark was made.

Hillary’s vote was certainly calculated. If the damned thing was a great success and she voted against it- she could never be prez. If, on the other hand, it failed and she voted in favor- she still had a chance.

Since her vote was not going to make the difference in whether or not the authorization passed, she was free to take politics into consideration and she did.

At least that’s how I read it.

You need to explain paragraph #2.

The AUMF vote was a classic squeeze play.

If Democrats voted for the war and it went well, they wouldn’t get the credit but they wouldn’t get the blame. If it went badly, they would avoid the charge of wanting us to lose.

If Democrats voted against it and the war went well, they would be portrayed as unpatriotic, weak, and wrong. If the war went badly and they opposed it, well no one including many Democrats thought this would happen.

From the Republican point of view, if the war went well they would take all the credit. And if they could sucker the Democrats into supporting it and things went badly, they could always say that see, we were all fooled.

Confessions? I am still in bed. In my jammies plus sweats. But just logged into the work email, so I guess it’s OK.

Steve-AR @ 135

The same with saying that vote ratings don’t mean anything if they don’t agree with a preconceived opinion.

i can’t say anything about the voting record because i have not studied it for myself…. my sense is it would take a significant amount of time to give it a fair study.

brendan @ 128

selise @ 84

this from the guy who pulled the inspectors so he could bomb iraq in a failed attempt at “regime change”

i know it’s not fair to senator clinton – but one of the reason i can’t support her is that i so despise bill clinton.

Thank you for retrieving that fact from the memory hole.

yes, let’s not forget that he signed that execrable 1998 resolution put together by the PNAC lunatics stating that the official U.S. position was for regime change in iraq. holy joe and the bushites relied heavily on it when they argued for going in. “we’re not suggesting anything clinton wouldn’t do.”

Smgumby @ 77

All this just makes Dodd look better. Someone remind me again why he isn’t electable?

Say after me: “HE IS ELECTABLE, as well as highly qualified.”

Rinse. Repeat.

Now. Maybe you can help the dear doggies explain to me why all these kind folks all across this broad land buy into the absolute inevitability of Clinton being THE candidate.

If so many people dislike the possibility of a Clinton prez, WHY are all these talented, savvy, energized people not working their #*&%s off in POSITIVE ways for the other Democratic candidates?!

Just call me deafdumb&blind. I don’t get why everyone’s buying into the media blitz so totally.

I gotta go get outta here for awhile. Totally outclassed by all the erudite wordiness about, and up-to-here with the doom, gloom & carnage agnst our own….. however classy, or, not…
*sigh*

don’t bother. i know this dialog is very, very important. yes, i’m serious… i just can’t handle any more right now… catch ya later ;->

selise @ 126

mui @ 116

Ah yes, mention the shell vote trick Lieberman perfected and I see fireworks. Barack Obama has that kind of game I think, maybe not as bad, but where was he on Kyl/Lieberman? Really what was sooo important that he didn’t bother to show up?

my bold.

see yesterday’s thread on this very topic. several obama supporters said that obama didn’t know that the vote was going to be held when it was, and he couldn’t make it back to dc in time.

i spent 2 and a half hours going through the congressional record (see my comments here and here) and i think that’s bullshit. ‘course it wasn’t an exhaustive analysis – i’d need alot more than 2.5 hours for that, but at this point i’m not interested in putting any more time into it unless the obama supporters come back with some evidence to support their position.

I saw the post. That reminded me as to why er. . . I have such a problem with Barack Obama (can he answer a question?)
In vernacular terms, Barack Obama is full of it.

My ma says that when you put politically professional Dems and Repugs in a bag, shake them up, and draw one out, there’s no difference. I tend to agree with her. I will write in a candidate on the ticket (namely Dennis K) before I vote for Hillary. I’m tired of voting for the ‘least evil’. My vote doesn’t count anyway, so I might as well vote for who I want even if I have to write them in.

cinnamonape @ 124

selise @ 84

this from the guy who pulled the inspectors so he could bomb iraq in a failed attempt at “regime change”

i know it’s not fair to senator clinton – but one of the reason i can’t support her is that i so despise bill clinton.

Selise- As I recall Saddam had already once before kicked out the UN inspectors. It was 4 years before they were allowed back in. And then Saddam started trying to hide documents and prevent them from inspecting certain sites.

There was an ultimatum given, with the head of the inspection teams to report if there was free and full access. That report contained major problems. Then and only then did Clinton ask the inspectors to be withdrawn.

http://www.defenselink.mil/new…..x?id=41731

“…already once before kicked out U.N. inspectors.”

This careless phrasing on what may seem like a fine point to some (and to everyone in the MSM) makes selise’s point all the clearer. Clinton withdrew the inspectors. They weren’t “kicked out”. More importantly, his administration then adopted a policy of “regime change”. That’s when the clock started ticking on the project to invade Iraq.

alabama @ 130

Can anyone name a single elected official who, in unequivocal terms, has denounced the war in Iraq as an evil act performed by an evil America? I could use some help on this one….

Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington State.

I don’t know if I can Google up some quotes before we’re EPU’ed, but I know they’re out there.

Wouldn’t Dodd/Richardson be a beautiful ticket for America?

dmg @ 136

oy, true voting confessions.
i voted for nader.
twice.

*pat on back*
FDL is in testifyin mode today. It’s quite funny.

TexBetsy @ 141

Confessions? I am still in bed. In my jammies plus sweats. But just logged into the work email, so I guess it’s OK.

bunny slippers?

Me, I’m in my cleavage revealing silk blouse, gay sweater, navy blazer, large lapel pin, wing tips, and expensively coiffed. I better not break a nail on my keyboard. That would just ruin my election monitoring day.

Hugh @141:

No, I was interested in this sentence:

“If, on the other hand, it failed and she voted in favor- she still had a chance”. “Still had a chance” to be prez, that is. It makes sense to me: the establishment will not allow a credentialed anti-war politician to win a party nomination. I’m just curious if that’s the way rwcole meant it.

One more time. Go upstairs and bask in the glory of my zed!

brendan @ 115

IrishJim @ 103

They are trying to cover up the fact that they released 1500 Terrorists from prison because “they had repented”.

Could you elaborate on this? Whenever I hear that a country — Israel comes to mind — is releasing or negotiating the release of some big fat round number of “terrorists” in the hundreds, I think “hostages” or “political opponents”. If they are really dangerous why risk releasing them?

Here is an article released on Monday: Saudis release 1500 Al Queada Terrorists

According to the article, the 1500 had undergone religious counseling and have renounced their former terrorists beliefs.

Smgumby @ 150

Wouldn’t Dodd/Richardson be a beautiful ticket for America?

I’d vote for them!

Irish Jim at 155

According to the article, the 1500 had undergone religious counseling and have renounced their former terrorists beliefs.

Can we do this to the Bushies in the DoJ?

Smgumby @ 150

Wouldn’t Dodd/Richardson be a beautiful ticket for America?

In a word, no. Dodd, yes, but Richardson, no.

IrishJim @ 155

brendan @ 115

Could you elaborate on this? Whenever I hear that a country — Israel comes to mind — is releasing or negotiating the release of some big fat round number of “terrorists” in the hundreds, I think “hostages” or “political opponents”. If they are really dangerous why risk releasing them?

Here is an article released on Monday: Saudis release 1500 Al Queada Terrorists

According to the article, the 1500 had undergone relegious counseling and have renounced their former terrorists beliefs.

Makes ‘em sound kinda like the ex-gays.

Christy’s upstairs…

TexBetsy @ 112

– just had a flashback to a Seinfeld episode, heh.

“OMG! I’m so sorry! REALLY sorry!”

I live and work with teenagers. That statement there is a direct translation for “Oh Shit! I got caught!”

heh

do-si-do @ 152:

TMI…*g*

October 10, 2002

Congressman Jim McDermott

Mr. Speaker:

We are standing at the abyss of a horrifying war. President Bush himself told us Monday night that this war was neither “imminent nor unavoidable.” And yet we are pushing, hurrying, racing against time to give the President our approval of a future war, a war without limits or boundaries, a war waged because the President thinks diplomacy has failed.

I do not believe diplomacy has failed. And I do not believe we have to go to war. President Bush’s speech was designed to frighten the American people, and to intimidate the United Nations. It wasn’t addressed to us, the Congress, because President Bush and his advisers already believe that they have our backing. But they don’t have the backing of the American people. The polls tell us that. Our constituents tell us that. The phone calls and faxes and emails and letters to our offices, running 100 to one, 500 to one against this war, all tell us that. I, for one, am not afraid. And I do not think my colleagues in the House and in the Senate should be afraid either. We should not be afraid of standing up to an unnecessary war. We should not be afraid to stand up to a president when he is wrong. We should not be afraid of the American people; they are right.

. . . .

I oppose this war because it is a war of empire, not of legitimate self-defense. We claim to be a nation of laws. But too often we are prepared to put aside the requirements of international law and the United Nations Charter to which we hold other nations appropriately accountable.

. . . .

A U.S. invasion of Iraq would risk the lives of U.S. military personnel and kill potentially thousands of Iraqi civilians; it is not surprising that many U.S. military officers, including some within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are publicly opposed to a new war against Iraq. Such an attack would violate international law and the UN Charter, and isolate us from our friends and allies around the world. An invasion would complicate the return of UN arms inspectors, and will cost billions of dollars urgently needed at home. And at the end of the day, an invasion will not insure stability, let alone democracy, in Iraq or the rest of the volatile Middle East region. Rather, it will put American civilians at greater risk than they are today.

We need disarmament, not a war for empire, oil, or “regime change.” We need the UN inspectors to go in and finish their work. Until they do, we simply don’t know what weapons Iraq has or doesn’t have.

Let us not go to war, in pursuit of oil or power or the blandishments of empire. War is too important and its consequences too disastrous.

Congressman Jim McDermott Remarks on House Joint Resolution 114, To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

1,672 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND..

Citizen Blue Texan and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

This conversation about the Clintons and where they take us politically is TREMENDOUS…it is the same conversation that folks all over the country are havin’ and especially in Iowa. I think the jig is about up for this couple of Potemkin leaders…the more we get both of ‘em out in the open together and force ‘em ta put lipstick on this pig economy and the war in Iraq, the more their complicity in the actions that got us here become clear. And, more importantly, the lack of substance or principle in their politics is gunna be Mrs. Clinton’s undoing.

KEEP THE FAITH AND THE BASTARDS WILL LIE THEMSELVES RIGHT TO HELL!!

selise @ 126

mui @ 116

Ah yes, mention the shell vote trick Lieberman perfected and I see fireworks. Barack Obama has that kind of game I think, maybe not as bad, but where was he on Kyl/Lieberman? Really what was sooo important that he didn’t bother to show up?

my bold.

see yesterday’s thread on this very topic. several obama supporters said that obama didn’t know that the vote was going to be held when it was, and he couldn’t make it back to dc in time.

i spent 2 and a half hours going through the congressional record (see my comments here and here) and i think that’s bullshit. ‘course it wasn’t an exhaustive analysis – i’d need alot more than 2.5 hours for that, but at this point i’m not interested in putting any more time into it unless the obama supporters come back with some evidence to support their position.

Obama was a co-sponsor of S.970 that also defined the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a “terrorist organization” and imposed sanctions upon them. In many respect S.970 was actually a more severe measure than the finalized Kyl-Lieberman Resolution. To be fair Clinton was also a co-sponsor, although she followed Obama.

The Resolution was referred to the Finance Committee and no further action has been taken upon, according to Thomas.

http://pundits.thehill.com/200…..-on-obama/

selise @ 143

Steve-AR @ 135

The same with saying that vote ratings don’t mean anything if they don’t agree with a preconceived opinion.

i can’t say anything about the voting record because i have not studied it for myself…. my sense is it would take a significant amount of time to give it a fair study.

The real trick is knowing what lies behind the vote. Is it a wink to one group and a sop to another? A vote against a bill that you and the lobbyists know will pass but one that you can sell to a particular constituency that you can point to and say: See, I represented your interests here.

What you need to see are the stated views of a politician, whether they lead on the issue, how they vote, and if they vote consistently the same way on the issue. As it is, politicians can vote for and against an issue at different points in the process or they can vote for or against an issue knowing their vote doesn’t reflect their views or the expected outcome.

rwcole @ 39

Hillary got ratings on her voting record of “zero” from most gooper groups. She is a long ways from a gooper. She got very high ratings on her record from most liberal groups.

I don’t put all of my stock in how interest groups view candidates (I’m looking at you, NARAL, vis a vis Lieberman).

I put more stock in a candidate’s voting record and track record.

Hillary is certainly better than the Republican candidates, but nowhere near as good as Dodd or Edwards.

The corporate PR machine has anointed Hillary because they can live with her, just like they did Bill.

They’re scared shitless of Edwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99BDVzU7pxA

Adie @ 56

War On War Off @ 37

It really is just a bloody game to them.

I’m not thrilled with them either, but I just flat-out do. not. agree. with you on this point.

It is possible for a skilled candidate to chuckle and assume a confident countenance, and still be very very serious indeed, inside as well as looking into the future.
IF it comes down to Hill, I hope I hope I hope she fits into that category.

Face it. None of us knows for sure how ANY of the candidates would do in what looks to be a wickedly difficult situation left behind by the present administration. I have tremendous concerns also about electing a person competent to tackle the job.

Can good parents be bad people? The Clintons are just plain bad and a waste of time. The fact that Bill Clinton now claims he could not openly oppose the Iraq War because he was a former president speaks volumes about this vapid man. This country faces serious top down deficiencies and the Clintons are emblematic of that problem.

Dang! What happened? We agree 100%!?!?

The DLC and Clintons are what the GOP was before Ronnie the elder. Woe unto the progressives if we get 8 more years of the dynasty.

Steve-AR @ 104

Hillary may be a lot of things..but vacuous she isn’t. She didn’t get to Wellesley and Yale by being vacuous. I met her parents many years ago, they were nice people who didn’t have the money or influence to give Hillary a free ride…

It will never cease to amaze that at age 60 Hillary Clinton credentials herself by where she went to college and law school. The notion that the Clintons at age 60 are not vapid or vacuous because they went to good schools when they were teenagers is pretty ridiculous. I do not trust anyone who touts where he or she went to school at age 60. But then again if you really have no serious thoughts, that is where you might find haven. Suffice it to say the Clintons are as vapid as it comes.

I’ll bet my LSAT score was/is higher than either of the Clintons, Gotcha.

Clinton said that Bush should have waited to invade until after the UN inspections were over. But that would have revealed that there were no WMDs, meaning that the whole pretext for the invasion would evaporate. Bush would then be invading to enforce UN Security Council Resolution 1441 after Saddam finished demonstrating full compliance with that resolution.

It’s like we have been saying all along:

Clinton = More of the Same

Dear President Clinton: this is how you oppose a war. You may want to share this with your wife, as the issue may come up again:

Barack Obama’s remarks delivered on 26 October 2002 in Chicago at Federal Plaza at an anti Iraq war rally organized by the ANSWER coalition.

“Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.
The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil.
I don’t oppose all wars.
My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton’s army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain.
I don’t oppose all wars.
After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this Administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such a tragedy from happening again.
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income – to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.
That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.
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.
So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.
You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn’t simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.
Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.
The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not – we will not – travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.”

Amen Obama! True judgement and political leadership trumps “experience” and craven triangulation every time. Enough of the Clintons!

Q. What is a politician?

A. A professional liar.

This is the big DLC final pay-off/give-away to the GOP time. Now that we’re only a few months from choosing the Democratic Nominee, it’s time to start bringing DOWN Hillary’s numbers so that the Republicans win and she doesn’t actually have to serve.

Adie @ 56

War On War Off @ 37

It really is just a bloody game to them.

I’m not thrilled with them either, but I just flat-out do. not. agree. with you on this point.

It is possible for a skilled candidate to chuckle and assume a confident countenance, and still be very very serious indeed, inside as well as looking into the future.
IF it comes down to Hill, I hope I hope I hope she fits into that category.

Face it. None of us knows for sure how ANY of the candidates would do in what looks to be a wickedly difficult situation left behind by the present administration. I have tremendous concerns also about electing a person competent to tackle the job.

Did you see them trying to prevent this debacle? That was a “wickedly difficult situation” and their non-action spoke volumes. I knew we were going to war with Iraq based on nothing but lies, and I’m just a lowly worker bee. With the Clinton’s presumably better informed and better connected sources, they should have know as well. In fact, they DID know, and didn’t do a damned thing to stop it. And HRC wants Colin Powell in her cabinet…another who knew better, but didn’t stop this horror. No. I won’t be voting for HRC if she is the nominee. I will stay home. And you can BET if she comes to Netroots, I will let her know exactly why I am not voting for her. Damned Powerf*cker.

PhilK @ 163

October 10, 2002

Congressman Jim McDermott

Mr. Speaker:

We are standing at the abyss of a horrifying war. President Bush himself told us Monday night that this war was neither “imminent nor unavoidable.” And yet we are pushing, hurrying, racing against time to give the President our approval of a future war, a war without limits or boundaries, a war waged because the President thinks diplomacy has failed.

I do not believe diplomacy has failed. And I do not believe we have to go to war. President Bush’s speech was designed to frighten the American people, and to intimidate the United Nations. It wasn’t addressed to us, the Congress, because President Bush and his advisers already believe that they have our backing. But they don’t have the backing of the American people. The polls tell us that. Our constituents tell us that. The phone calls and faxes and emails and letters to our offices, running 100 to one, 500 to one against this war, all tell us that. I, for one, am not afraid. And I do not think my colleagues in the House and in the Senate should be afraid either. We should not be afraid of standing up to an unnecessary war. We should not be afraid to stand up to a president when he is wrong. We should not be afraid of the American people; they are right.

. . . .

I oppose this war because it is a war of empire, not of legitimate self-defense. We claim to be a nation of laws. But too often we are prepared to put aside the requirements of international law and the United Nations Charter to which we hold other nations appropriately accountable.

. . . .

A U.S. invasion of Iraq would risk the lives of U.S. military personnel and kill potentially thousands of Iraqi civilians; it is not surprising that many U.S. military officers, including some within the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are publicly opposed to a new war against Iraq. Such an attack would violate international law and the UN Charter, and isolate us from our friends and allies around the world. An invasion would complicate the return of UN arms inspectors, and will cost billions of dollars urgently needed at home. And at the end of the day, an invasion will not insure stability, let alone democracy, in Iraq or the rest of the volatile Middle East region. Rather, it will put American civilians at greater risk than they are today.

We need disarmament, not a war for empire, oil, or “regime change.” We need the UN inspectors to go in and finish their work. Until they do, we simply don’t know what weapons Iraq has or doesn’t have.

Let us not go to war, in pursuit of oil or power or the blandishments of empire. War is too important and its consequences too disastrous.

Congressman Jim McDermott Remarks on House Joint Resolution 114, To Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

Thank you for this, PhilK. It comes as close as any comment I’ve read to being the comment I’m looking for–and in fact it fails in this regard.

McDermott talks about the madness, the mad extravagance, the madly extravagant frivolity of the war. He does not, however, address the evil of the war. And, to my knowledge, none of our elected officials ever has. Does this mean that none in fact regards it as evil? As a “crime against humanity”? As “murder most foul”? If none does, then none has any moral compass, and we shouldn’t waste time looking for something that doesn’t exist (and of course i refuse to believe this). But if there are some that do regard the war as evil, and haven’t managed to say so… well, I might count them among the more prudent of our citizens, but not among the courageous. Because an appeal to common sense is not an act of courage; it’s a display–and a very appealing display–of rational thinking, something quite different from moral courage.

I seem to recall–but I may be wrong on this–that Senator Wayne Morse denounced the war in Viet Nam as an utterly evil act. If indeed he did so, then this might well explain the decline of his fortunes as a politically powerful figure.

Waited for what – if inspections had completed there would never have been a war first of all. That is some stupid Clinton advise – oh do it but make sure you jump through more hoops next time with the dog and pony show.

1,672 dayz and the killin’ goez on and on and..

Citizen waka waka:

If ya think that an Obama administration would be any different from the one we got now ya need ta take another toke a whatever it is yer smokin’ and then go ask Bobby Rush.

KEEP THE FAITH BUT DON’T BE STUPID ABOUT IT!!

redx @ 180

Waited for what – if inspections had completed there would never have been a war first of all. That is some stupid Clinton advise – oh do it but make sure you jump through more hoops next time with the dog and pony show.

Gimme a break. The Clintons knew Bush was on go and tacitly supported him through their inaction. Do you really think there would not have been a war based on the outcome of the inspections Where does that hypothesis come from? Powell, utlilizing the incompetence of Tenet, ignored the inspections, all of them and relied on evidence not derived from the inspections but from Tenet’s slam dunk evidence and analysis. Bush would never have waited for the inspections to have been completed as that “fact” would have been a factor Bush would have had to “dispute”. Clinton saw this and picked a red herring. In no way did the Clintons show any leadership or do anything to stop the Iraq War. Now the MSM should ask Hillary whether “Bill” disagreed or disagrees now with her Iraq vote having not read the NIE. Hopefully, opposition to HRC can push the Clintons out of the race on this latest wordsmithing from “Bill” Clinton. Is that his real name?

And yet I’m told I *must* vote for HRC? Nope, I decline, thanks. Won’t vote for her.

We don’t need yet another triangulating liar in the WH, and HRC might be worse than Bubba there.

Tex; overall, we have to thank Perot for having Bill for 8 years. And he was damn sure better than DaddyBush would have been, but whenever we start talking about HIS smarts (forget Hillary’s; she’s fucking up by the numbers…) we need to keep in mind that when the GOP was frantically looking for a stick to beat him with, he was too glandular to keep his hands off the hired help, and thusly handed them a nail-embedded club.

SteveAR@104;

George BUSH went to Yale.

And Harvard.

The campaign is producing a whole lot of revisionism:

-Clinton claims he was against war but did not say so at the time

-Rove says congress rushed the AUMF vote in Oct 2002 and wanted war not Bush

-NPR said this evening that ” The US military underestimated the number of troops needed for Iraq war” – so it wasn’t BushCheneyRumsfeld that fired Shinseki for wanting 300to 500 thousand and kissed Tommy Franks for agreeing to 150,000.

I guess they really do think we are all stupid and cannot bring up their own records and words to throw in their faces- after all it is the blogs that will do it– not the press

Veritas78 @ 12

Oh, and how thoughtful of him to defend Bush against “the left.” Like we’ve had any power since FDR, and we need to be defended against. Screw off, Clintons.

That’s probably the most damning thing about what he said. Why would he think he should defend Bush?

Veritas78 @ 23

The more I think about this, the more it pisses me off. The Republicans suck up to their base in the most shameless manner, but does any Democrat pay even lip service to us, the most passionate, involved segment of our party?

More and more, I’m inclined to vote for Dennis Kucinich. He may never be President, but at least he talks the talk.

Trouble is, that vote doesn’t actually get us a non-Republican non-Hillary Dem president.

Please vote for either Edwards, Dodd, Biden or Obama!

perris @ 86

…
I guess I am among the few that does not equate “the right to go attack” with attacking prematurely

both clintons gave bush the right to attack if the inspectors said there were wmd’s, bush attacked without those wmd’s

congress NEVER gave bush the right to attack pall mall without evidence and bush never got the evidence and never got the OK from EITHER Clinton

Technically you’re right. That most senators didn’t read the intelligence reports tell us they didn’t want to know the details. Most all of them voted based on political considerations. Of course, that was the position Rove intentionally put them in. Apparently there was no other real purpose to that legislation since Bush ignored it in the end.

Consider this though, if that authorization didn’t give Bush the right to go to war without UN support and yet he still went, then what signal does the Kyl-Lieberman amendment vote, which also doesn’t authorize war, send to Bush?

We don’t need any unclear shades of gray discussion of war or evidence for war where Bush is concerned. Hillary didn’t seem to understand that (same for the other Dems who voted for it).

BTW, someone posted earlier that Obama had legislation which said essentially the same as Kyl-Lieberman, but it never came up for a vote. What could’ve been on his mind?

Smgumby @ 150

Wouldn’t Dodd/Richardson be a beautiful ticket for America?

Richardson is absolutely terrible at the most basic politicians skill of presenting himself and speaking clearly.

I’d prefer Edwards-Dodd because they both have really nice haircuts. :-)