Obama And Hillary Release Dueling "Memos" On Iran

Comments (70)

Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 7:18 PM:

Thank you, Obama, for writing the 2008 GOP ads against Hillary for them.

Jake D. wrote on October 25, 2007 7:21 PM:

"That's not the kind of ________ and strength and leadership Americans are looking for in their next President"?

Liberal Larry wrote on October 25, 2007 7:30 PM:

Both of our Ivy League elitists declared Iran as a terrorist organization.

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 7:52 PM:

Oh, my! The gloves are off. I thought that they'd wait until the attacks began to show signs of working before they exposed the contradiction that is Senator Obama, but I guess they are ready to "nurse" that lead all the way to the first primary and caucus. They aren't taking any chances, which is good. This seems to be straight out of my recent posts so, of course, I think that it will be effective. It is worth emphasizing and repeating repeating as often as necessary:

This is now: Stagnant in the polls and struggling to revive his once-buoyant campaign, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and embarked on a journey in search of a campaign issue to use against Senator Clinton. Nevermind that he made the very argument he is now criticizing back in November 2006. Nevermind that he co-sponsored a bill designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a global terrorist group back in April. Nevermind that his colleague from Illinois – Dick Durbin – voted the same way as Senator Clinton on Kyl-Lieberman and said “If I thought there was any way it could be used as a pretense to launch an invasion of Iran I would have voted no.” Today, in order to justify his opposition to Kyl-Lieberman, Senator Obama says that such language is bellicose and gives the President a blank check to take the country to war. But if Senator Obama really believed this measure gave the President a blank check for war, shouldn’t he have been in the Senate on the day of the vote, speaking out, and fighting against it? Instead he did nothing, remained totally silent, skipped the vote and spoke out only after the vote to engage in false attacks against Senator Clinton. A Washington Post editorial summed it up best: “Now, trailing in the polls and sensing a political opportunity, Mr. Obama is trying to portray Ms. Clinton as a reckless saber-rattler. That is irresponsible and -- given the ease with which the charge can be rebutted -- probably naive, as well.” That's not the kind of and strength and leadership Americans are looking for in their next President.

Keith wrote on October 25, 2007 7:53 PM:

The Clinton memo lifted those quotes from Barack's "A Way Forward in Iraq" speech (6 Nov 2006):

"As a phased redeployment is executed, the majority of the U.S. troops remaining in Iraq should be dedicated to the critical, but less visible roles, of protecting logistics supply points, critical infrastructure, and American enclaves like the Green Zone, as well as acting as a rapid reaction force to respond to emergencies and go after terrorists.

"In such a scenario, it is conceivable that a significantly reduced U.S. force might remain in Iraq for a more extended period of time. But only if U.S. commanders think such a force would be effective; if there is substantial movement towards a political solution among Iraqi factions; if the Iraqi government showed a serious commitment to disbanding the militias; and if the Iraqi goverment asked us--in a public and unambigiuous way--for such continued support. We would make it clear in such a scenario that the United States would not be maintaining permanent military bases in Iraq but would do what was necessary to help prevent a total collapse of the Iraqi state and further polarization of Iraqi society. Such a reduced but active presence will also send a clear message to hostile countries like Iran and Syria that we intend to remain a key player in this region.

Second quote:

"And so I firmly believe that we should convene a regional conference with the Iraqis, Saudis, Iranians, Syrians, the Turks, Jordanians, the British and others. The goal of this conference should be to get foreign fighters out of Iraq, prevent a further descent into a civil war, and push the various Iraqi factions towards a political solution."

Make no mistake--if the Iranians and Sryians think they can use Iraq as another Afghanistan or staging area from which to attack Israel or other countries, they are badly mistaken. It is in our national interest to prevent this from happening. We should also make it clear that, even after we drawdown forces, we will still work with our allies in the region to combat international terrorism and prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is simply not productive for us not to engage in discussions with Iran and Syria on an issue of such fundamental importance to all of us."

Noted without comment.

NCSteve wrote on October 25, 2007 7:58 PM:

"Flagging campaign," "missed the vote," "strenght and leadership," "naive," blah de blah de blah blah blah.

Is there anyone working for her who's not a robot?

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 8:02 PM:

Text of KLA (Sense of Senate)

b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate--

(1) that the manner in which the United States transitions and structures its military presence in Iraq will have critical long-term consequences for the future of the Persian Gulf and the Middle East, in particular with regard to the capability of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to pose a threat to the security of the region, the prospects for democracy for the people of the region, and the health of the global economy;

(2) that it is a critical national interest of the United States to prevent the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran from turning Shi'a militia extremists in Iraq into a Hezbollah-like force that could serve its interests inside Iraq, including by overwhelming, subverting, or co-opting institutions of the legitimate Government of Iraq;

(3) that the United States should designate Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and place the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists, as established under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act and initiated under Executive Order 13224; and

(4) that the Department of the Treasury should act with all possible expediency to complete the listing of those entities targeted under United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1737 and 1747 adopted unanimously on December 23, 2006 and March 24, 2007, respectively.

Findings of S.970 (which is still in committee)

Congress makes the following findings:

(1) For more than 20 years, Iran has pursued a secret nuclear program that is intended to produce a nuclear weapons capability for Iran.

(2) The Government of Iran has consistently misled the United Nations, the International Atomic Energy Agency, and the United States as to the objectives and scope of its nuclear activities.

(3) Iran has refused to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, adopted on December 23, 2006, which called for the suspension of all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities and is advancing work at its largest nuclear facility.

(4) The International Atomic Energy Agency is unable to verify the absence of undeclared nuclear material and activities in Iran and its Director-General has stated that Iran could be 6 months to a year away from acquiring the material necessary to make a nuclear weapon.

(5) An Iranian nuclear weapons capability poses a grave threat to the security of the United States and its allies around the world.

(6) It is in the national security interests of the United States to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

(7) The United States should use all political, economic, and diplomatic tools at its disposal to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability.

(8) Nothing in this Act should be construed as giving the President the authority to use military force against Iran.

SEC. 3. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

The following is the sense of Congress:

(1) The United States should pursue vigorously all measures in the international financial sector to restrict Iran's ability to conduct international financial transactions, including prohibiting banks in the United States from handling indirect transactions with Iran's state-owned banks and prohibiting financial institutions that operate in United States currency from engaging in dollar transactions with Iranian institutions.

(2) The United States Trade Representative or any other Federal official should not take any action that would extend preferential trade treatment to, or lead to the accession to the World Trade Organization of, any country that is determined by the Secretary of State to offer government-backed export credit guarantees to companies that invest in Iran or any country in which the government owns or partially owns an entity that invests in Iran.

(3) Iran should comply fully with its obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 1737, and any subsequent United Nations resolutions related to Iran's nuclear program, and in particular the requirement to suspend without delay all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including research and development, and all work on all heavy water-related nuclear activities, including research and development.

(4) The United Nations Security Council should take further measures beyond Resolution 1737 to tighten sanctions on Iran, including preventing new investment in Iran's energy sector, as long as Iran fails to comply with the international community's demand to halt its nuclear enrichment campaign.

(5) The United States should encourage foreign governments to direct state-owned entities to cease all investment in Iran's energy sector and all imports to and exports from Iran of refined petroleum products and to persuade, and, where possible, require private entities based in their territories to cease all investment in Iran's energy sector and all imports to and exports from Iran of refined petroleum products.

(6) Administrators of Federal and State pension plans should divest all assets or holdings from foreign companies and entities that have invested or invest in the future in Iran's energy sector.

(7) Iranian state-owned banks should not be permitted to use the banking system of the United States.

(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 8:19 PM:

My post from yesterday. It did not take long before the prediction came to pass. It is now tit-for-tat with the gloves off. The politics of "hope" will now be history and so will the "Audacity of Hope"...

I read both bills carefully and it was the designation of IRGC as a terrorist organization, which was present in both bills, that most of its opponents had found objectionable due to the potential for Bush to use it as a back door to attack Iran. Obama's bill had this provision, but he contends that this was not as objectionable as the IRGC's excursions into Iraq, which he claims to have wanted to emphasize. Sooner or later, HRC's camp will hit him hard on this and he'll be finished. So far they have let him off the hook with tame statements such as "it is unfortunate that Senator Obama is abandoning his pledge for clean politics, blah, blah, blah..." They are setting him up. Obama is more vulnerable on this than he or you realize, simply because (a) he missed votes that he is ranting about, (b) sponsored legislation [similar to the one] that he is criticizing others about, and repeatedly voted for [funding to perpetuate] a war that he claims to have "opposed."

Just you wait...

I will pour myself a cold one, pull a lawn chair and enjoy the fireworks...

elrapierwit wrote on October 25, 2007 9:18 PM:

Thanks Keith,

That memo from HRC's camp was confusing as all get out. It was clear that things had been quoted out of context and there was no way to understand what Clinton was asserting.

In fact, her memo comes across as whinning and boasting, nah, nah, nah, I'm ahead in the polls and you can't catch me, I am going to bash you will you are down.

Instead, it would seem if she is the frontrunner she should showcase some leadership and address the issue concisely and with clarity so that voters can understand the core points.

The only message that I heard was snide boastfulness and a total lack of substance on the issue.

The memo comes across as a boastful weasel.

The who said this format is really tacky.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 9:31 PM:

Edwards is the only one who comes off well in this exchange.

Obama might be slightly less bad on his reasoning for designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, but in order to make that case, he needs a level of close reading of proposed legislation that even TPM devotees can barely muster. Expecting the general public to follow along is quixotic. Instead, they just hear "he missed the vote" and what was an attack on Hillary becomes a black mark for Obama.

Edwards is the only candidate who has been able to hit Hillary on this and have the blows stick.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 9:32 PM:

Edwards is the only one who comes off well in this exchange.

Obama might be slightly less bad on his reasoning for designating the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization, but in order to make that case, he needs a level of close reading of proposed legislation that even TPM devotees can barely muster. Expecting the general public to follow along is quixotic. Instead, they just hear "he missed the vote" and what was an attack on Hillary becomes a black mark for Obama.

Edwards is the only candidate who has been able to hit Hillary on this and have the blows stick.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 9:34 PM:

Sorry about the double post.

Richard L. Adlof wrote on October 25, 2007 9:37 PM:

Oh my goodness . . . I'm flabberghasted . . . The major right-of-center and the major just-barely-left-of-center Democratic candidates are having a tiff spelled out in memorandums. Be still my pounding heart . . .

Andrew Jackson would be ashamed on so many counts.

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 9:51 PM:

Edwards is the only candidate who has been able to hit Hillary on this and have the blows stick

Unfortunately, Edwards is broke, will have to dependent on hand outs from the pubic trough, and is thus a dead duck. However, if Obama is bloodied in this exchange with the Clinton camp, Edwards might potentially benefit. But his reliance of public dough makes him vulnerable in a drawn out head-to-head match up against HRC, and should he miraculous prevail, he'd lose to the GOP nominee in a landslide, especially if that nominee is Rudy. Neither Obama nor Edwards can be presumed to protect NY and other Dem-safe states in the northeast from Rudy. No NY, no win for the Dem. This in itself is a powerful argument for HRC's nomination. She takes NY and CA off the table, which immediately improves the electoral vote calculus for the Dems.

Keith wrote on October 25, 2007 9:57 PM:

Anonymous:

I think you are right, for the most part. I think at this point, we all know why Clinton has so far ignored Edwards: she's got absolutely ZERO defense the substance of the charge. With Obama, at least, she can stick and move a little, but only a little.
The fact of the matter is, she basically just scrapped the barrell as a defense: lift two quotes completely out of context. Nothing on the substance, just he missed the vote. Wait, my bad, the Senior Senator from Illinois disagreed with his assessment.

If I'm Obama, I say: Apparently Senator Clinton reads my speeches much in the same way she read the NIE on Iraq, which is not at all. Or something to that effect.

He definitely has the facts on his side, the question will be whether he uses the ample ammunition she's given him.

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 10:05 PM:

He definitely has the facts on his side, the question will be whether he uses the ample ammunition she's given him.

We'll be waiting with bated breath for a volley of that ample ammunition from Senator Obama...if he even finishes this round on his feet.

Keith wrote on October 25, 2007 10:14 PM:

dcshungu:

Your candidate basically has nothing here--she's relying on little more than smoke and mirrors. I wouldn't be so smug if I were you, but luckily, I'm not you.

party-of-one wrote on October 25, 2007 10:34 PM:

This is scary. Hillary Clinton is posturing again. She is scared of being portrayed as soft on defense and incabable of being Commander in Chief, so she enable Bush's invasion of Iraq and is doing the same with Iran. We do not need someone as president like Hillary Clinton, who follows the polls and shows such horrible judgment on international issues.

In these desperately challenging times, do we really want a president who postures and panders, and is so consumed by paranoia of the "VAST right wing consipiracy" that she attacks on one hand and delivers exactly want they want on the other = Iraq and Iran.

We don't need Hillary, we need change.

dcshungu wrote on October 25, 2007 10:35 PM:

Your candidate basically has nothing here--she's relying on little more than smoke and mirrors.

Smoke and mirrors is how it has always been done, but there is plenty there because of the simplicity of the argument: Obama skipped the vote and now, down in the polls, he has the gall to criticize anyone on it! How can Obama distill his beef against Hillary to such simplicity? Tough.

Once again, in desperation, someone gave Obama a bad advice. He should stay away from the war votes because people already know the story, and for those who do not yet know, Obama has muddied the waters by skipping the Iran vote, and voting repeatedly to perpetuate the Bush war. Nothing he can say the on war would affect Hillary. Her team would just throw it back at him and put him on the defensive because his team is over-matched in political skills. If you think he looks inept now, wait until he goes against the GOP machine. Hillary's experience fending off the wingnuts is already showing of some benefits.

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 10:44 PM:

You are so right Obama is be simple here. He's telling the TRUTH. You can bandy about "polls" "flagging campain" "bad advice". What I haven't heard you or her campaign say is that the charges are untrue.

Once the media recognizes that she's lying, she's lost the one thing her campaign of smoke and mirrors is dependent on: CREDIBILITY.

party-of-one wrote on October 25, 2007 10:46 PM:

dcshungu, your spouting of the Hillary Camp's talking points gets very old. Can't you at least come up with your own vocabulary and phrasing? Continue if you must. But just for your personal edification, when Obama differs with Hillary it is not an "attack", it is the democratic process. His politics of hope is very much intact and inspiring millions. Hillary wishes she had such charisma, vision, good instincts and judgment. So attack Obama's strenghts, in the Karl Rove/Mark Penn mode of politics. The nation is wise to it now. It won't work again. "Me too" attack dog Hillary is the perfect follow the lead Senator in a do nothing Congress. Long may she serve. She is not presidential. Obama is.

Keith wrote on October 25, 2007 10:52 PM:

He missed the vote. It was so critical that Harry Reid scheduled and held it within 30 minutes. But hey, those are the breaks. It happens. No excuses.

Now how does that explain lying? How does that explain her CYA move co-sponsoring the Webb Amendment? Missing a vote because of scheduling is one thing; lying for NO REASON, well that's entirely different thing isn't?

Even if Obama is neutralized because he's missed the vote, it still leaves the substance of the charge. If he were the only one in the race, then it would die there. But you don't think Biden, Dodd and Edwards are going to make hay on this? They may not have a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but she's got ZERO defense on this and if it gets Biden or Richardson 1 point in the polls, you don't think they'll take it?

tarheel74 wrote on October 26, 2007 12:24 AM:

Edwards does not have a leg to stand vis-a-vis Iran or Iraq or any war. His very public mea culpa on WashPo can only be deemed as washing one's hands very publicly. Pilate would be proud. And if you think he is any better on Iran then you are sadly mistaken.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1149572637421&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

FreakyBeaky wrote on October 26, 2007 1:13 AM:

There's no contradiction, necessarily, between the Kyl-Lieberman resolution and the Webb amendment. It's "leveraged diplomacy": use of diplomatic tools (K-L) backed by a credible threat of force as a last resort - that is, not yet (Webb).

I don't agree with it in this case - I've said elsewhere that the only legitimate reason Iran has for pursuing nukes is that nukes will prevent a U.S. attack, and we should take that reason away by taking the military option off the table - but it's not CYA.

anon wrote on October 26, 2007 1:53 AM:

1. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war authorization without even attempting to read the intelligence reports on it. She has publicly acknowledged never having read the intelligence before casting her vote for this disasterous war. She has been in favor of the war from day one. She remains in favor of the war.

2. She has pointedly refused to admit her vote to authorize the war was even a mistake. This is because she remains in favor of the war. Her only criticism of the war has been that it was mishandled by Bushco. That is her sole complaint about the war. Not that it is immoral or illegal or that it was a stupid idea in the first place the consequences of which were predicted by many including average citizens.

3. She has nevr once said she opposes the war in Iraq. Never. This is because she is in favor of the war.

4. She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment and offered the same paper thin cover for doing so as she did for the original Iraq war authorization by going on record as saying it doesn't give Bush permission to go to war as though that makes any difference whatsoever. Her vote in favor of this abhorrent piece of legislation indicates she favors widening the war in Iraq to include attacking Iran. The entire purpose of Kyl-Lieberman was to provide a legal basis for an attack on Iran and any honest observer understands this.

5. She has refused to commit herself, if elected President, to withdrawal of all forces from Iraq even by 2013. She refuses because she is in favor of the war.

6. Anyone with a track record this bad, with such a lengthy and public record of supporting this war has no business in the oval office. The level of bad judgement, poor leadership, and just foolishness she has demonstrated on this issue is remarkable.

7. No amount of arrogant snark from Hillary Clinton's supporters can cover up the fact that she has supported the war from day one, she has never objected to the war, and has never stated she opposes the war. There is no indication at all in her public statements that she has any intention of getting our troops out of Iran anytime soon if elected which means she has the same essential position on the war as most Republican members of Congress and most Republican Presidential candidates. How could any Democrat support a candidate such as this?

Anonymous wrote on October 26, 2007 2:13 AM:

Freaky Beaky:
By HRC's own admission, she went to the floor of the Senate in February 2007 to tell President Bush he needed congressional authority for war in Iran. On March 5, 2007, Webb introduced his amendment. It was sent to committee, with no sponsors. Fast forward to the New Hampshire debate (Sept. 27th) where she took flak for the vote--claiming that it didn't give Bush a basis for attacking Iran. October 1, she quietly "co-sponsors" the Webb Amendment, without Webb's knowledge.

And thus we have the following statement:

Hillary has been clear and consistent in saying that diplomacy backed by economic pressure is the best way to check Iran’s efforts to acquire a nuclear weapons program and stop its support of terrorism, and the best way to avert a war.That’s why she took to the Senate floor last February and warned the President not to take military action against Iran without going to Congress first and it’s why she’s co-sponsored Senator Webb’s legislation to make that the law of the land.

If she were truly consistent, she would have co-sponsored the Webb Amendment in March 2007 when it was offered (I mean it was less than a month after she went to the floor). It didn't become "convenient" to do so until after her vote on KLA.

freakyBeaky wrote on October 26, 2007 2:41 AM:

Anonymous - it doesn't matter. She went on the record supporting both K-L and Webb. That's her position, and it's a consistent one (though not one I'm thrilled with). That's what counts. And let he who is "truly consistent" cast the first stone ...

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 6:41 AM:

Anonymous wrote on October 25, 2007 10:44 PM:

You are so right Obama is be simple here. He's telling the TRUTH. You can bandy about "polls" "flagging campain" "bad advice". What I haven't heard you or her campaign say is that the charges are untrue.

Once the media recognizes that she's lying, she's lost the one thing her campaign of smoke and mirrors is dependent on: CREDIBILITY.

I see... You somehow think that the "problem" is that Obama is telling the "truth" about something but no one wants to listen to him? Well, you are mistaken. This is NOT about who is telling the "truth" or who is "lying", unless I am missing something. The facts are well known, are part of the searchable public record, and are not even in dispute. That is why one must wonder what they are smoking over there at CampObama; either that, or we have created in Obama the most arrogant candidate of all time, who thinks that everyone would believe anything that he alleges, no matter how ridiculous, just because he says it! But as I said, the facts are simple and not even in dispute at all: Clinton voted for the K-L bill but Obama, who's had a history of skipping potentially "sticky" votes, did not. Then, under pressure to shake up a race that is looking increasingly bleak for him, Obama does the unthinkable and attacks Clinton for her "Yea" vote on the K-L bill, which he had not taken to the Senate floor to oppose and had ducked, and had contained a provision that the opponents of the bill (most notably Sen. Webb) had objected to! This is known in Hebrew as chutzpah, and it will come back to bite him in the tutu!

There is little doubt that Obama had received very bad advice on this one. He should not have touched it with a 10-foot pole because its inanity had already been pointed out in the blogosphere. For instance, a quick Google search just led me to this scathing Oct 11 blog piece Obama Ducks Vote then Attacks Clinton that concluded

As much as I hate the Kyl-Lieberman vote of Clinton's, which I stated forcefully at the time, it's hard to argue with these two men, as well as Dick Durbin who was always against the Iraq war. You may not agree with Clinton all the time, because I sure don't. But when she's asked to put her name on the line she shows up and does so, then is willing to take the heat. That's character. I'm not sure what ducking a critical vote then slamming your opponent much later on it says about Obama.

His research people and advisers should have known better... This coming right at the heels of Gospel-Singer-gate, is it time for Obama to get a brand new team of advisers? The one he's got seems to be very incompetent. It's taken one of the most buoyant and exciting campaigns in recent memory and turned it into a limping, but well funded, caricature of what "could've been"... They should not have advised Obama to "go there" or they should have dissuaded him to if this was his idea.

I do not see how this bunch can compete against the GOP's no-holds-barred smear machine...A deer caught in headlights comes to mind...

DTM wrote on October 26, 2007 7:16 AM:

Senator Clinton is in a lot of trouble on this issue. Every time the Administration does something unpopular among Democrats on Iran (and the skies the limit on what they might do), the Administration is going to tie their justification at least in part to Iraq. And when the Administration does that, the other Democratic candidates are going to point to Clinton's support of Kyl-Lieberman.

And none of that is specific to Obama being the messenger. Of course, it would be better for him personally if he had been able to vote (I don't think it was his fault, but that doesn't change the fact it would have been better for him to have voted). But Obama missing the vote does not change the basic problem for Clinton, because in the end it is her own vote which is the issue. And when it comes to actually voting for Kyl-Lieberman, she is out their alone among the Democratic candidates.

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 7:17 AM:

wrote on October 26, 2007 1:53 AM:

1. Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war authorization without even attempting to read the intelligence reports on it.

Check.

2. She has pointedly refused to admit her vote to authorize the war was even a mistake.

That is an established fact.

3. She has never once said she opposes the war in Iraq.

Rather simple-minded for such a serious affair, but your view has been registered.

4. She voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment.

That is an established fact also.

5. She has refused to commit herself, if elected President, to withdrawal of all forces from Iraq even by 2013.

True. None of the top-tier Dem candidates has agreed to commit to that because they know it won't be that simple. They are trying to avoid a "Read my lips: Out by 2013" sort of thing... Broken promises have a way of creeping up on you at reelection time, if you catch my drift.

6. Anyone with a track record this bad, with such a lengthy and public record of supporting this war has no business in the oval office.

Which is why we have already given up on your vote.

7. No amount of arrogant snark from Hillary Clinton's supporters can cover up the fact that she has supported the war from day one, she has never objected to the war, and has never stated she opposes the war.

No one is trying to cover anything up. It is all part of the public record. Senator Clinton has clearly said that if you fault her on her war vote, then vote for someone else. There is no cover up at all. Most people know her record already and understand the issues: GWB made the decision to go to war and badly messed up the conduct of it. The buck stops there, remember? Imagine if Bush had competently waged that war and peace had broken out all around the area, would we be awarding Sen Clinton the Presidential Medal of Freedom for her "yea" vote? I think not. GWB would be basking in the glow of superlatives from the media; he'd be taking credit for everything, and the media would calling him 21st century's Honest Abe. Hillary's vote would be an asterisk under this scenario. So then, do you see why it is so foolish to choose the next leader of the free world on the basis of a single vote. A "yea" vote on the AUMF bill was "wrong" ex post facto ONLY because Bush messed. Just as he would have been given all the credit for a successful outcome in Iraq, so too should he be blamed for a bad outcome. That is uniform application of standard. This is obvious to me but I do not expect you to agree with any of this. Hillary is the best of candidate of either party to replace Bush with to fix the mess that Village Idiot is sure to leave behind.

Anyway, I hope you would consider supporting Senator Clinton for the general election if she is the nominee because the alternative would be 8 more years of the GOP, but worse: Giuliani would make the current Village Idiot seem like a choirboy... ask us New Yorker. It is why HRC is trouncing her in every NY poll: we know both devils and we know which devil we would rather see running the country. Take it from us: WE KNOW.

Cheers!

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 7:21 AM:

The preceding post responds to Anon who had commented on October 26, 2007 1:53 AM.

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 7:32 AM:

DTM wrote on October 26, 2007 7:16 AM:

Senator Clinton is in a lot of trouble on this issue.

This is wishful think, as we are still waiting for credible evidence to support this oft heard claim. My sense is that it is a desperate attempt to alter the course of this election but it will short because most people already know all the facts and they have chosen to support HRC because (1) they are not single-issue folks and (2) they have seen HRC and have decided that she is by far the best candidate that the Dems have.

How much chance do you give Obama or Edwards to beat Giuliani in NY, NJ, CT and CA, or just in NY, without which no Dem can be elected POTUS? You see what I mean. HRC's nomination would take all of those states out of contention. With Obama or Edwards as the nominee, election night 2008 would be very long if Giuliani is the GOP nominee. Little thought and some electoral vote calculus would tell you that this is true...

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 8:12 AM:

It is why HRC is trouncing her in every NY poll: we know both devils and we know which devil we would rather see running the country.

LOL. There is a Freudian slip is there ever was one! I referred to Rudy the cross-dresser as "her" in that post...ROTFLMAO!

DTM wrote on October 26, 2007 8:20 AM:

dcshungu,

You are making two fundamental mistakes in your analysis of how this issue will affect the dynamics of the primaries (I won't address your general election speculation, since it is irrelevant to the topic at hand, but I will note I think you are wrong on that as well).

First, you state "most people already know all the facts." That is almost undoubtedly incorrect. Most primary voters are not in fact following these issues in the same way that you and I are following them, and indeed their opinions will be strongly influenced by advertisements and media coverage in the last few days before they vote.

Second, as I implied before, "all the facts" do not yet exist. Specifically, as future events involving the Administration and Iran occur, that will add to the universe of relevant facts, and as I noted, I have no doubt the other candidates will keep tying those future events back to Kyl-Lieberman.

In short, the damage of Clinton's vote is not yet fully done because the magnitude of the damage is tied to what the Administration does with respect to Iran from now until the primaries. Which is really not a good position for her to have put herself in.

sagacious wrote on October 26, 2007 8:24 AM:

All of the political explanations and contortions in the world aren't going to change the fact that, once again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view.

Hey Greg why are we seeing headlines demanding Hillary state her position on telecom immunity...you harassed Obama for 2 days about a Gospel singer, SINGING.

How about some reporting on issues of far greater significanc like our right to privacy?

Greg, Obama is believes in transparency when it comes to government funds. He has detailed his earmarks, why hasn't HIlliary?

Where are your headlines demanding that Hillary account for the billions in taxpayer money she wasted in earmarks funding museums? Hillary claims she is an agent of change but she has no credibility when she is spending billions on wasteful projects while letting citizens in Harlem suffer.

This is a political site yet you are not helping us to be informed when it comes to Hillay's stance.

These dueling memos, are a crock...Hillary phucked up and she can't retract it with a battle of words, even her sponsoring Webb's bill does NOTHING. Webb's bill does not UNDO the K-L amenmendment.

Give us the complete political facts about Hillary and her posturing on nukes, she was against them before she was for them when Obama was against them now she is against them, despite claiming she is the one with experience?

Hillary is a weather vane without principles and this memo is another example of that.

If the press did their jobs we could have the BEST candidate for President not the one corporate America is funding?

Please get busy Greg and demand Hillary renounce telecom immunity... hound her like you did Obama.

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 9:05 AM:

First, you state "most people already know all the facts." That is almost undoubtedly incorrect. Most primary voters are not in fact following these issues in the same way that you and I are following them, and indeed their opinions will be strongly influenced by advertisements and media coverage in the last few days before they vote.

DTM: You can presume anything that you'd like but I hope that the Obama team would be wiser. Your presumption is that somehow his team would "educate" the [few] people who do not yet know the "facts" and strongly "influence" opinions through ads and media coverage. It makes me think of an organ music program called "Pipe Dreams" that I listen to every Sunday morning. Do you think that Hillary's team, with all its political skills at shaping opinions, and a formidable "war chest" to go along, would just sit around while CampObama is "educating" the public? Pipe dream! What just happened here is what will happen: It will be tit-for-tat, and Obama is really very vulnerable to the charge of (putting charitably) being inconsistent.

The commercial would not say much. It would just say: Now down in the polls, Senator Obama has abandoned the politics of hope and is attacking Senator Clinton on a vote that he had ducked, and on her vote on a war that he claims to have (rolling the eyes) "opposed" but had repeatedly voted to fund. Senator Obama: A new kind of politician? Yeah, right...

They need to return to the politics of hope if they wish to compete, but I believe that it is now too late for an about face...

Second, as I implied before, "all the facts" do not yet exist. Specifically, as future events involving the Administration and Iran occur, that will add to the universe of relevant facts, and as I noted, I have no doubt the other candidates will keep tying those future events back to Kyl-Lieberman.

Wishful thinking and conjectures on future events cannot pass for lucid analysis...Pipe dream.

In short, the damage of Clinton's vote is not yet fully done because the magnitude of the damage is tied to what the Administration does with respect to Iran from now until the primaries. Which is really not a good position for her to have put herself in.

Wishful thinking and conjectures on future events cannot pass for lucid analysis. Bush will not be attacking anyone before he leaves office because (1) he has emasculated himself along with the US military, (2) he won't get any support from anyone including the SecDef, JCS chairman, the American people, the Congress (that is right)and our allies, he is an isolated buffoon who is struggling to come to grips with the harsh judgment of history that awaits him in Crawford, TX, the place where mediocre POTUSes go to reminisce on what might have been if only they had....

People will blame Bush if he goes to war. Not Hillary...so, it is time to wake up.

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 9:17 AM:

All of the political explanations and contortions in the world aren't going to change the fact that, once again, Senator Clinton supported giving President Bush both the benefit of the doubt and a blank check on a critical foreign policy issue. Barack Obama just has a fundamentally different view.

No one is trying to change anything or "facts"!!! The facts are there and people can take them for what they are and chose to cast their vote on the basis of what they conclude. Do not vote for Hillary if you think that she is not qualified to be POTUS because of her position on the war. The question is: does Obama have the right to criticize anyone on votes that he either was in no position to cast (AUMF; but voted repeatedly to continue the war when he finally could express his purported "opposition"), or had ducked, when he could have voted or taken to the senate floor to express his "opposition"? The message (those war votes were "bad") might be fine but the messenger (Senator Obama) is flawed because he has no moral authority to deliver the message. Do you get it?

Are you using your head or just mindlessly spewing left-wing formulaic drivel characteristic of those who would not vote for HRC's anyway, but are driven mad by her success so far.

Think, think, and think. You brain will atrophy if you do not use it, y'know.

NCSteve wrote on October 26, 2007 9:22 AM:

Okay, that's it.

Everytime someone (and how fascinating that the campaign is out of the closet as the source, now) does the "he ducked the vote on Kyl-Lieberman" slur, I'm going to point out that Hillary "ducked" the vote on the credit card company written Bankruptcy Act revision. Sure, she *claims* she would have voted against, but she wasn't there when it counted?

DTM wrote on October 26, 2007 9:24 AM:

dcshungu,

First, as I noted in my original post, this issue for Clinton has nothing in particular to do with Obama being the messenger, and I fully expect all of the Democratic candidates to continue to raise her vote. Accordingly, even if your proposed ad by Clinton dragged down Obama down as well (although I suspect it would not), it still doesn't address the fundamental problem for Clinton.

Second, I agree that I cannot predict with any certainty what the Administration is going to do with respect to Iran. But of course neither can you. And that is precisely why your analysis is wrong: all the relevant facts are not yet known, because they have not yet happened.

Michael wrote on October 26, 2007 9:25 AM:

dcshungu, too funny. You are hilarious. Mrs. bill has refused to provide any facts or details, just generalizations, bs and waffling. What a bunch of garbage. But keep repeating the polling and that she is invincible and the ridiculous attacks that you keep doing. It keeps turning people off from voting for your boss. Great moves.

On one of your last diatribes, you try to shift blame to the king if the moron attacks iran. I blame all congress persons and the right-wing, corporate media that do not stand up to the king and stop his nonsense. You assume that people will forget the blank checks these idiots keep giving the king. I don't think so. If he starts a war with Iran, I blame your boss for giving him another free pass and everyone else who did. Just like she did on iraq. What ever happened about reading that NIE that said the king was full of bs on Iraq? You never address that issue. I assume I will get more attacks from you without addressing that darn NIE.

Keep smoking what your smoking and keep punching that time clock until you're relieved by colon, what an appropriate name for your compatriot.

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 9:41 AM:

Everytime someone (and how fascinating that the campaign is out of the closet as the source, now) does the "he ducked the vote on Kyl-Lieberman" slur, I'm going to point out that Hillary "ducked" the vote on the credit card company written Bankruptcy Act revision. Sure, she *claims* she would have voted against, but she wasn't there when it counted?

It is fair game as far as I am concerned. If Obama can gain traction out of that issue then more power to them. But the difference is that HRC has NOT attacked Obama for that vote if she had indeed ducked it. See the difference? Senators miss or duck votes all the time, but the arrogance is for someone to duck a vote and then turn around and attack those who'd voted when a vote turns to be unpopular.. chutzpah!

Intellectual honesty requires that we hold all the candidates to the same standard and judge them using the same yardstick... That is why Obama's repeated votes to fund Bush's misadventure in Mesopotamia should be held to the same standard as Hillary's initial for AUMF. None of the candidates other than Kuccinich is blameless on the war, and we're forgetting that it is Bush's war. People out there (more than 50% of whom had supported the war back in 2002-2003)are not as rabid about that vote the lefties and the netroots, who are but a small minority of the electorate and can usually be safely ingored unless it is turns out to be a very close election like in 2000.

So, vote for Kuccinich if you are looking for a candidate who is blameless on the war! Consistency and intellectual honesty obllige...

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 9:48 AM:

And that is precisely why your analysis is wrong: all the relevant facts are not yet known, because they have not yet happened.

I am a realist and you are a dreamer, so therefore, I am the wiser. You are always hoping for the other shoe to drop on Clinton, but there is no other shoe! This is the Information Age and anyone who wants to find out anything factual has access to it. By the time your so-called "hidden" facts come to light, it will be over...so, please go on, and keep dream!

Anonymous wrote on October 26, 2007 9:50 AM:

dcshungu:

Smoke and mirrors is how it has always been done, but there is plenty there because of the simplicity of the argument: Obama skipped the vote and now, down in the polls, he has the gall to criticize anyone on it! How can Obama distill his beef against Hillary to such simplicity? Tough.

This is your argument in a nutshell: Obama has no credibility because he skipped the vote. You have to distort reality to avoid reality. I don't know what is sadder, the juevnile nature of the response or your apparent glee that your candidate of choice is this vacuous.

At least it's refreshing to have an HRC supporter acknowledge that there is no substance here. The willingness to lie, shade the truth or otherwise distort reality to advance the one and only cause: to win.

And that's what this campaign boils down to: a choice between change or a pure, unadulterated Machivellian.

anon wrote on October 26, 2007 9:55 AM:

dcshungu,

Why would anyone who is an actual Democrat vote for Hillary Clinton in the general over a Republican when she is one? Vote for a Republican and you get the continuation of the war. Vote for Hillary Clinton and you get continuation of the war. Do you think anyone whose child is killed, maimed or difigured over there gives a damn about the Supreme Court once that happens to their child?

Michael wrote on October 26, 2007 10:00 AM:

Amazing, dcshungu, I do agree that obama ducking the vote was stupid and hurts his credibility. That being said I disagree with the vast majority of your "intellectually dishonest" post. I wouldn't go as far as your attacks against obama. The more that obama does and doesn't do in this campaign, the more he doesn't look viable and the more his numbers go down. I don't think venemous attacks are necessary. Just look at the facts. I know you don't want to do that, because them nasty facts aren't good for your boss.

Also, anyone who ignores 70% of the population's position on the war is a fool and doesn't deserve to be elected. It's not "rabid lefties" and "netroots" opposed to the war, its 70 percent of the gd population. So, what's your boss's position? Uh, lets keep rocking and rolling in iraq. What a moron.

DTM wrote on October 26, 2007 10:01 AM:

dcshungu,

Unfortunately, it seems that once again, rather than discuss the substance of the issue, you would prefer to attack those who disagree with you.

I will just correct two final errors on your part. First, obviously people are still keeping secrets in the "Information Age". Second, in any event that is irrelevant to my point, because my point was not that the relevant facts are "hidden" (a word only you used, even though you put it in quotes). Rather, my point was that all of the relevant facts do not yet exist, because what happens in the future will be relevant to how this issue plays out.

And even in the "Information Age", it turns out that the future still remains pretty difficult to predict.

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 10:28 AM:

Why would anyone who is an actual Democrat vote for Hillary Clinton in the general over a Republican when she is one?

Because most people who will be voting in November 2008 are much closer to the center of American politics than you are, and are much more in tune with Hillary's views than with yours. I am just left of center, where Hillary also is. But from the extreme left where you are, folks like us or Hillary might as well be Republicans. You see, it is a matter of perspective and vantage point. Kuccinich or Feingold, who are ideologically "pure" liberals, would never be elected POTUS because they are where only few Americans live. They are great citizens and members of Congress, who I have deep respect for, but I do not share their deep ideological passion for "pure" liberalism.

BTW: To call HRC a Republican fFifth Column among the Democrats is not very smart as (a) for the past 15 years the Repubs have relentlessly pursued her and demonized her, and (2) HRC has the best progressive record of the current top-tier Dem candidates (look it up).

I hope I answered your question. Dems will vote in large numbers for HRC because most of them are ideologically where she is: near the center of American politics, where the elections are won. She'll be the first ever woman POTUS and a great one.

anon wrote on October 26, 2007 10:36 AM:

If they vote for her in large numbers it will only be because they have no choice. A very sad statement in what used to be the greatest democracy in the world. Unfortunately for you but very fortunately for the country she will never be elected President. So enjoy her moment in the sun cause it ain't gonna last.

anon wrote on October 26, 2007 10:43 AM:

Oh, and dcs?

Look at this little nugget of Hillary Clinton's Republicanism from an AP wire report yesterday:

On Thursday, the administration declared the Revolutionary Guard a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and announced the new sanctions meant to isolate Iran. The Iranian government contends its nuclear program is aimed only toward providing nuclear power.

Clinton was supportive of the administration move.

"We must work to check Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support of terrorism, and the sanctions announced today strengthen America's diplomatic hand in that regard," she said. "The Bush administration should use this opportunity to finally engage in robust diplomacy to achieve our objective of ending Iran's nuclear weapons program while also averting military action."

Romney, who has been advocating a hard line against Iran throughout his presidential campaign, also applauded the administrations' move. He said military action would be necessary if severe economic and diplomatic sanctions don't persuade Iranian leaders to abandon pursuit of a nuclear weapon.

Michael wrote on October 26, 2007 10:44 AM:

dcshungu, what about her not reading the NIE before the Iraq war that revealed that the king's case for war was bs? What's your talking point on that?

How do you square the fact that 70% of the population is against the war with your boss's position? 70% of the population cant be left-wing fringe lunatics can they? Or am I missing something?

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 10:49 AM:

Rather, my point was that all of the relevant facts do not yet exist, because what happens in the future will be relevant to how this issue plays out.

I have already addressed the "substance" of that comment. The future is the land of the ever receding barrier. Wherever you are, there is the present all around you. No one, absolutely no one, ever lives in the future. So, therefore, I do not see the merit in your so-called point. I have address, at length, anything that you have posted. To suggest otherwise convinces me of what I had already suspected: We might as well be giving a speech to date tree in the Sahara desert...

We are not breaking any new grounds here so I am now going to look at some brain MRI scans of OCD subjects to try make sense of what makes some folks in these forums here tick...

Ciao capi!

Anonymous wrote on October 26, 2007 10:51 AM:

tarheel:

Exactly what is your link intended to prove? That Edwards said a year ago that he didn't take attacking Iran off the table? Yes, so? I don't think any of the candidates have said they relinquish that option. The question here is whether they choose to give the administration a green light by designating the IRG a terrorist group.

Michael wrote on October 26, 2007 10:59 AM:

Well, I guess dschungu is off the clock. Either that or her instructions are to bail whenever someone raises the NIE issue. Every time I have raised it, she ignores it and eventually bails. Very amusing.

On another note, a vote for mrs. bill is just like voting for a repuke, so you might as well vote in the repuke primary and get your candidate of choice. Let the dems nominate a dem, not a repuke.

In fact, Mr. Bill was more of a repuke then a dem and I really don't understand why dems just "love" him, including especially minorities. He totally screwed them and they support him???? I don't get it.

DonnaG wrote on October 26, 2007 11:20 AM:

Prediction: Hillary is the sleeper anethema to the Democratic party.

Should she get nominated, there will be enormous buyers remorse when we patriotic, Constitution-loving peace-promoting Democrats watch her triangulate to out-neocon the neocons in the general. Now is the time to notice her propensities in that direction, starting with her disingenuous stances on AUMF and Kyl-Lieberman. Now is the time to study her connections to the military/security power complex, which includes demanding full disclosure from her with respect to her earmark requests, her income tax records, her White House papers, and the donors to the Clinton Global Initiative.

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 12:52 PM:

This bit fallacy just caught my eye:

If they vote for her in large numbers it will only be because they have no choice.

There is always a choice, as "refusal to choose" and "absence of choice" are also choices. That is why those who would rather "sit this one out" than to vote for Senator Clinton are, in reality, also voting. Whatever they do, they'll help to determine the outcome of this election. By "sitting it out" they're, in fact, just "choosing" to let other choose for them. Their choice is not to choose which, as you can see, is still a choice, but in philosophical circles that is called "cowardice."

Recommended reference material on existentialistic treatment of choice, freedom, morality:

Jean-Paul Sartre:

L'age de Raison ("The Age of Reason")
L'Etre et le Neant ("Being and Nothingness")

Call me in the morning if you need more.

One way another, everyone chooses...

Michael wrote on October 26, 2007 1:04 PM:

dcshungu, what about her not reading the NIE before the Iraq war that revealed that the king's case for war was bs? What's your talking point on that?

How do you square the fact that 70% of the population is against the war with your boss's position? 70% of the population can't be left-wing fringe lunatics can they? Or am I missing something?

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 1:04 PM:

Now is the time to study her connections to the military/security power complex, which includes demanding full disclosure from her with respect to her earmark requests, her income tax records, her White House papers, and the donors to the Clinton Global Initiative.

Excuse me if I am wrong but aren't we supposed to be reading such,...er.., sermons only on Christian right web sites? I thought I was clicking on the link for the left of center site TPM-EC, but I guess I was mistaken...It sounded very scary. I was in Berlin this summer and what fascinated me most was going to old pubs in East Berlin and getting people to tell me how it was like during the old days of the STASI. Many of the stories sounded like... "demanding full disclosure from her with respect to her earmark requests, her income tax records, her White House papers, and the donors to the Clinton Global Initiative."

Michael wrote on October 26, 2007 1:16 PM:

dcshungu, what about her not reading the NIE before the Iraq war that revealed that the king's case for war was bs? What's your talking point on that?

How do you square the fact that 70% of the population is against the war with your boss's position? 70% of the population can't be left-wing fringe lunatics can they? Or am I missing something?

You are out there. STASI???? East Berlin??? Nah, I bet you don't leave your parent's house except to deposit your paycheck from your boss. Why does your boss have a problem with disclosure? Something to hide?

DonnaG wrote on October 26, 2007 1:54 PM:

Just like the STASI, dcshungu prefers to quell citizen's rights to question and explore facts about political power brokers. Just like the STASI, it is somehow 'unpatriotic' to hold the powerful accountable.

If the German people hadn't been so sheepish when Hitler began to aggress..... if the German people had been sufficiently and bravely aware and informed, history might be minus an indelible black mark... a black mark now being mirrored by the neocon warmongering in the ME, abetted by none other than the triangulating Senator Clinton. But, for dcshungu, accountability and disclosure requests of Hillary Clinton are declared verboten.

dcshungu wrote on October 26, 2007 3:12 PM:

Just like the STASI, dcshungu prefers to quell citizen's rights to question and explore facts about political power brokers. Just like the STASI, it is somehow 'unpatriotic' to hold the powerful accountable.

Madam, search for "accountability" without regard to the rule of law, individual liberties, and privacy is the stuff of STASI. If you have cause for suspecting Clinton of any wrongdoing, then please take it to law enforcement officials and then apply the same standard to all the candidates. Otherwise? Well, STASI, of course!

Your repetition of various forms of the word "patriotism" reminds me of those on the other side who wear their "patriotism" on their shirt sleeves and are always intent on curbing dissent, scrutiny and "accountability" in the name of "patriotism." Are you sure you are not a rightwing Fifth Column amongst us?

loki wrote on October 26, 2007 3:36 PM:

As I've read through all these posts...and yes, I read them all! (Whew!)

I am left thinking about football. In any given game there is always someone being aggressively arrogant and cocky and obnoxious...even when they are losing!

His team is losing 24 to zip. There's 2:00 minutes left in the game. He gets a lucky break and sacks the quarterback and then he gets up and taunts the QB, the other players, the opposing team's bench, the fans, etc, etc.

This person exhibits all the trademarks of a seriously deluded soul.

Many, not all, but many of the people in this thread who are going ape-shit over a Hillary nomination remind me of this player.

Michael wrote on October 26, 2007 3:36 PM:

dcshungu, what about your boss not reading the NIE before the Iraq war that revealed that the king's case for war was bs? What's your talking point on that?

How do you square the fact that 70% of the population is against the war with your boss's position? 70% of the population can't be left-wing fringe lunatics can they? Or am I missing something?

loki wrote on October 26, 2007 3:40 PM:

Donna G,
You said: " dcshungu prefers to quell citizen's rights to question and explore facts about political power brokers."

Please show me where 'dcshungu' is quelling citizen's rights!

loki wrote on October 26, 2007 3:47 PM:

Michael said: "How do you square the fact that 70% of the population is against the war with your boss's position?"

This is Hillary's stance on the war: "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."

Just thought you should at least know this much. You don't seem to too up on things.

loki wrote on October 26, 2007 4:10 PM:

Sorry, all of her quote should have been italicized! My bad.

Hillary's stance: "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today.

"We have heard for years now that as the Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down. Every year, we hear about how next year they may start coming home. Now we are hearing a new version of that yet again from the president as he has more troops in Iraq than ever and the Iraqi government is more fractured and ineffective than ever.

"Well, the right strategy before the surge and post-escalation is the same: start bringing home America's troops now."

DonnaG wrote on October 26, 2007 4:31 PM:

Hillary Clinton is running for the highest and most powerful office in the nation. She has refused to disclose information on her earmark requests, her income tax records [which would also disclose sources of the tens of millions of dollars acquired by the Clintons in the past few years] , records related to her years as First Lady, and her husbands' money connections through the Clinton Global Initiative. She considers lobbyists 'just people'. She voted for both AUMF and the Kyl-Lieberman legislations.

Evidently, loki and dcshungu believe that the voting public has no citizen rights to the undisclosed information about Hillary Clinton. At 1:04pm, dcshungu considered that requesting that information from a presidential candidate to be either 1] a 'right-wing sermon' or 2] a STASI-like surveillance/information-gathering invasion of privacy.

At 3:12 pm, dcshungu directly follows the neocon playbook on the issue of wire-tapping to assert that 'if you have evidence of something, present it'. The whole point, I guess, is that we had no Bush teams disclosure about wire-tapping, and now no disclosure from Hillary to clear up her money connectedness issues. While dcshungu is fine with trusting Hillary to not be in bed with the neocons, I am not fine with trusting Hillary, particularly in light of her votes on issues of war, and in light of her fence-straddling responses in general.

Doesn't it seem to you, loki, that dcshungu is denigrating citizen rights to full disclosure from this candidate?

loki wrote on October 26, 2007 10:53 PM:

"...money connectedness issues."

Oh Donna...you poor soul. You really have no idea how ridiculous you sound.

DonnaG wrote on October 27, 2007 12:50 AM:

I take it that you, loki, have no issue at all with the cancer that has developed in Washington, DC which is the money influence on politicians, and how that money is used to affect legislative and executive decision-making, not to mention media dependent election and re-election campaigns.

A thousand lobbyists in the '80's, but some 35,000 today or roughly 65 lobbyists per congressional or senatorial representative. Nice little tumorous growth with its own developed blood vessel circle of quid pro quos, all the better to channel the whole nation's wealth and future into the control of the few who play along.

I would like to know that Clinton has not sold her soul to that unhealthy system. Her refusal to make disclosures is the opposite of reassuring, but that means nothing to someone like you who believes that even questioning her lack of disclosure 'sounds ridiculous'.

It is clear from your response that you are incapable of handling issues beyond smearing someone who brings them up. Enjoy your blind faith citizenship, but don't expect me to respect it.

loki wrote on October 27, 2007 5:08 PM:

Thank god you're there for us, Donna!

Allansi wrote on November 30, 2007 5:00 PM:

I have been trying over two hours to contact the insurance company for my car to ask a question. How in the heck do quote ask a machine a question. I am about ready to cancel next year because of this. It is so frustrating.
AARP Auto Ins Program From
Best Deals On Auto Insurance! Get quote Free Qoute
Top 100 Auto Insurance Myths
Be Wary of Free Online Credit Reports
AARP Auto Insurance
forex trading course ranking
site map
Cheap Pharmacy:Prevacid
Buy Hydrocodone Online

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)