home

5th Anniversary of Iraq War Decision: Who Will Get Us Out?

On this 5th anniversary of the vote to authorize an invasion of Iraq, who is the candidate most likely to get us out? As the Clinton campaign suggests in this video, Barack Obama has been anything but clear and consistent.

I'd put it another way. Obama, even today, wants to focus on who did what five years ago. That is so not the issue and so last year. Voters want to know who has the best plan for an exit and who is best going to be able to execute that plan.

Here's Hillary's plan. Here are 34 Admirals and Generals explaining why Hillary is better equipped to be commander in chief and why her plan to exit Iraq is both the best and most achievable: [More...]

< New Yorker Profiles Michelle Obama | If The Dem Race Goes To The Convention, It Will Be Obama's Doing >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A chunk of her speech from yesterday (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:44:28 PM EST
    was on this and her plan for withdrawal. Missed the whole thing...but the plan seemed to be front and center.

    From Hillary's plan..... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:44:35 PM EST
    Hillary knows that as we bring our troops and contractors home, we cannot lose sight of our very real strategic interests in this region.  Al Qaeda terrorist cells continue to operate in Iraq, cells that did not exist before President Bush's failed policy.  Under Hillary's plan the United States will retain counterterrorism forces in Iraq and the region to fight al Qaeda and will not permit terrorists to have a safe haven in Iraq from which to attack the United States or its allies.

    ah yes...those "strategic interests" must be protected.  iow, aside from a token scale-down to appease the anti-occupation masses, the occupation rages on indefinitely.

    This isn't a plan, this is a con-job.

    Funny, I don't see endless (none / 0) (#3)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:46:59 PM EST
    occupation anywhere in Hillary's plan.  Just realism.

    Parent
    Soldiers with guns on their soil... (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:48:14 PM EST
    is occupation.  What would you call it?

    Parent
    We have boots on the ground in Germany (none / 0) (#17)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:56:15 PM EST
    and England...are we occupying those countries as well?

    Occupation is a whole lot more than simply a "boots on the ground" criteria. The playing around in the political, social, and economic process is relevant as well.

    We are doing all of those in Iraq under the Bush admin. My understanding is that any of the Democratic plans would differ.

    Parent

    Yes we are.... (none / 0) (#20)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:57:59 PM EST
    occupying England, Germany, and 100 or so other countries.  Some countries just like being occupied...Iraq doesn't judging by the blood spilled.

    Parent
    I lived in Ireland... (none / 0) (#24)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:04:06 PM EST
    and worked for the Irish Parliament. I can assure you that America is not occupying neither England not the United Kingdom. Microsoft maybe...in parts of Dublin.

    But politically, they are operating on their own...dealing with their own issues.

    We aren't "occupying" them.

    Parent

    Although landing troop transport (none / 0) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:16:00 PM EST
    planes in Shannon did raise a huge flap.

    Parent
    Yup... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:40:49 PM EST
    for the first time in ages. We've been landing troops in Shannon for quite a long time.

    The father of a friend of mine used to talk about how the ship stopped off around NIreland for various things. They couldn't stop by the Republic because Ireland had declared itself neutral for WWII.

    Parent

    Poltically.... (none / 0) (#115)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:43:48 PM EST
    they govern themselves.  Technically, so does Iraq.  

    Granted, our troops aren't hated in Europe like they are in the Middle East.  Europe was afraid of the USSR more than the USA and they figured "hey, free security!".  

    But I don't think we should be have a military presence anywhere but on or within our borders...I think we can't afford it anymore and it fosters hatred and conflict in one way or another.

    I guess that makes me an isolationist militarily.

    Parent

    Prolly... (none / 0) (#158)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:37:48 PM EST
    this:
    I guess that makes me an isolationist militarily.
    describes it.

    Efforts like this, indicates that there're two sides to that particular knife.

    Parent

    Chalmers Johnson (none / 0) (#136)
    by facta non verba on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:15:58 PM EST
    has written the definitive works on US militarism. The Blowback Trilogy.

    I am not sure the current statistics precisely but the US has over 730 bases in over 130 countries. We have bases in Paraguay, Ecuador, Iceland, Portugal, Palau, Japan, South Korea, Spain, Italy, Turkey, Romania, Greece, Kenya, Tanzania, Spain, Germany, Norway, Honduras, Haiti, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Turkemstan, Afghanistan, Australia, Nauru, the Solomon Islands, Grenada.  

    Parent

    I cannot think of a modern war (none / 0) (#39)
    by Kathy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:29:39 PM EST
    where America left when it was over.

    Parent
    I don't think that there is one... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:36:18 PM EST
    vietnam (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:58:02 PM EST
    or as dana carvey impersonating ghwb said, "some people say we didn't learn the lesson of vietnam.  i say we did:  stay the hell out of vietnam".

    Parent
    Have 4,000 American troops (none / 0) (#101)
    by JoeA on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:24:24 PM EST
    been killed in England, Germany, South Korea,  in the last 5 years?

    There is just no comparison,  once wars in Germany South Korea and Japan etc finished there was no insurgency or continued war.  In Iraq there is.  If there is a continued presence on the ground in Iraq then the war will not be over and the bodybags will keep coming home.  You might as well have McBush in the White House,  at least he is honest about his intentions.

    Parent

    I think you just clarified part of my point... (none / 0) (#157)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:31:55 PM EST
    which is that there is a lot more to occupation than kdog's definition that occupation is defined by "boots on the ground."

    It's not just the presence...it's what's going on with regards to that presence.

    Parent

    Of course that is a part of it. (none / 0) (#167)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:03:20 AM EST
    However, any meaningful armed presence in Iraq long term will be viewed as an occupation (rightly in my view), and will lead to continued long term violence.   Parallels cannot be drawn with Japan/Germany/South Korea.  At least not unless you are McCain who argues that the coalition can remain in Iraq for 100/1000 years and people won't mind.

    Parent
    I think that the South Korean protestors (none / 0) (#169)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 09:52:05 AM EST
    from a few years back would disagree with you about that.

    I suspect that in the immediate aftermath of each situation, those countries (and rightly so) considered themselves to be occupied territory. For example, my aunt has several pieces of china/pottery ware that bear the Made in" label "Occupied Japan." This designated a period of time in the aftermath of WWII where there was an Allied occupation force inside Japan.

    Parent

    Last time I checked... (none / 0) (#12)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    each of the plans had a CT factor involved in them...but IIRC that troop level was a whole lot less than pre-surge levels.

    Parent
    Any plan.... (none / 0) (#15)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:55:18 PM EST
    that leaves troops behind to protect "interests" is no plan at all...it's business as usual.

    Parent
    Then you're pretty much out of luck (none / 0) (#21)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:59:57 PM EST
    unless you somehow manage to elect Nader.

    Occupation criteria requires more than just "boots on the ground." Embassies all over the world are protected by Marines and other military forces. I've got a friend (Army) currently assigned to one of the Southeast Asia embassies. And he's involved in many projects...including, I assume, CT.

    Parent

    I'll survive.... (none / 0) (#117)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:47:30 PM EST
    with a little luck.

    It's the country that is out of luck, imo.  Until we elect a Nader, Kubby, Paul, Kucinich...anybody not just talking sh*t like the 3 stooges.

    Parent

    Hillary's plan... (none / 0) (#112)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:36:52 PM EST
    Under Hillary's plan the United States will retain counterterrorism forces in Iraq and the region to fight al Qaeda and will not permit terrorists to have a safe haven in Iraq from which to attack the United States or its allies.

    I think we know that McCain would seek to widen and prolong the war, so there is no comparison between him and Hillary.

    But really, how does Hillary's stated plan differ from George Bush's stated justifications for the last five years?

    This is the language of a mainstream Washington Hawk, not a dove.

    Parent

    ...and Bush's plan (none / 0) (#124)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:00:01 PM EST
    ...to wit, here is George Bush in his own words (from 2005).

    I recognize that Americans want our troops to come home as quickly as possible. So do I.
    ...
    We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer.



    Parent
    ...and Bush's plan (none / 0) (#132)
    by Friday on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:09:51 PM EST
    Here's more...

    ...George Bush justifying the Iraq war (and linking it to 9/11.

    "Our enemies would have a safe haven from which to plan and launch attacks on the American people. On September the 11th, 2001, we saw what a refuge for extremists on the other side of the world could bring to the streets of our own cities."

    ...George Bush announcing limited troop cuts in 2007

    "The success of a free Iraq is critical to the security of the United States. A free Iraq will deny al Qaeda a safe haven."


    Parent
    We destroyed Iraq long ago (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:11:33 PM EST
    And no amount of military presence will change that.  The only strategic interests we have are those we believe are more important than the interest of the actual human beings who inhabit the wasteland we have created.  There is NO military solution to this, and that means get the military out, entirely, now.  A civil war will erupt?  Already has.  The Iranians will be emboldened?  They already are.  AQ will thrive?  Bullsh*t, the Iraqis will take care of them themselves, but they can't do that as long as AQ and the Iraqis have us around to despise, target and rightfully blame.

    We have failed murderously and miserably, and no amount of cowardly pandering to political fantasies and empty concepts of honor will do anything but make it worse.

    Out, entirely, now.

    Sadly, neither Clinton nor Obama... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Dadler on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    ...really seems to understand this or care.

    And neither, I believe, will have the brass to really change a thing.

    Parent

    i imagine that both of them (none / 0) (#35)
    by sancho on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:24:13 PM EST
    understand that american society as we know it cannot run without access to middle east oil. the carter doctrine, which cheney retranslated as the american way of life is "non-negotiable," is, finally, a bipartisan affair. i think hillary's endorsement by so many military people is significant and worth paying attention to.


    Parent
    not to mention Murtha (none / 0) (#36)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:25:35 PM EST
    not a shy flower about getting out of Iraq

    Parent
    the Murtha endorsment (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:53 PM EST
    got a grudgingly positive post at no less than the Dreary Kos.


    I'm glad you go there..... (none / 0) (#122)
    by ineedalife on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:56:44 PM EST
    so we don't have to.

    She should get that second ad on the air. It is a little long but can be edited down. It is powerful.

    Parent

    if only (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:56:30 PM EST
    If only we had a sane President in 2003.

    The AUMF was used to get the inspectors in to remove WMDs from Iraq.

    If we had a sane President, when the weapons weren't found, we'd have been able to set up a robust plan for dealing with Saddam short of invasion.  Then all the Senators who voted for the AUMF would be heros.  Too bad most of them didn't realize Bush was certifiable until around the first of the year.

    Here's a chilling review of (none / 0) (#99)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:23:26 PM EST
    Daydream Believers, about the Bush administration, Iraq, neo-cons, etc.  Book was written by Fred Kaplan:

    NYT

    Parent

    Both will get us out (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:54:20 PM EST
    I think that both will get us out of Iraq. I no doubt however Hillary's experiences make her better to lead as Commander in Cheif on day one. Obama says he's the becon of judgement because of his being against the war from the begining. I'll give him some credit for that decision, but one decision doesn't make you some becon of great judgement or leadership. Hillary has shown judgement, leadership, and has experience on foreign policy matters.

    Some of these lefties need to get over that vote. There was bad intelligence, and an adminstration that did not give the inspectors time to do their job, and once the war started badly mishandled the invasion. None of those are Hillary's fault.

    The hole in the 'wrong 5 yrs ago' argument (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by ruffian on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:13:54 PM EST
    is that it ignores that we already had an election about this in 2004.  I was against the war from the beginning also. I truly hated that Hillary voted for the AUMF.  I also hated that Kerry and Edwards did the same thing. But I understood the political realities of the times and knew why they did it.  Sure, I wish they had Feingold's courage, but he did not have national ambitions.

    Despite my disappointment, I was a strong supporter of Kerry and Edwards in 2004 because I thought Kerry would be a great president and get us out of Iraq.  So, in fact, was Barack Obama - so much a supporter that he gave that great speech for Kerry at the convention.  Sure did not act like a guy who thought Kerry did not have the judgement to be president.  If he had such strong feelings about it, why did he advance his political career by speaking in favor of Kerry?  He gave Kerry a pass, and said he might have done the same thing himself if he had been in the Senate.  

    So no, I do not think that Hillary's vote in 2002 means she lacks the judgement to be president, any more than I, or Obama,  thought that of Kerry.  Not by a long shot.

    Who will get us out? (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:47:33 PM EST
    None of the 3 stooges, that's for damn sure.

    I believe Kucinich would have got us out, Ron Paul would have got us out.  Nobody voted for them.  I guess all the polls are hopelessly wrong...the voting public loves them some foreign occupation and empire.  

    Oh, that really is ridiculous. (none / 0) (#7)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:49:33 PM EST
    In order to prove that they are not imperialists, Americans must vote for the likes of Kucinich or Paul?  

    Parent
    No.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:54:01 PM EST
    In order to end the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, Kucinich and Paul were our only real choices.  Not to prove anything, but to achieve a goal, the goal being ending the occupations.

    Maybe Gravel or Dodd too.  Definitely not Obama or Hillary.

    Parent

    Sadly, yes (none / 0) (#67)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:53:31 PM EST
    Imperialism is the default position of post WWII American foreign policy.

    Parent
    NIE (none / 0) (#6)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:48:34 PM EST
    Hillary didn't even read the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq before casting her vote. She didn't even read the supposed lies before falling prey to them!

    Did you read what Jeralyn said about (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:50:49 PM EST
    focusing on five years ago?

    Parent
    No, she didn't (none / 0) (#13)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:53:54 PM EST
    She TALKED to, INTERVIEWED, and CONFERRED WITH the people who actually wrote it.

    (BTW - Obama didn't read it either before he gave his opinion, which only with the benefit of hindsight, makes him look prophetic.  At the time, he looked foolish).

    Parent

    ha (none / 0) (#23)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:01:08 PM EST
    Are you seriously attacking Obama for looking foolish, even though he was right?

    I would rather look foolish and be right than look wise and be wrong.  

    Parent

    It is easy to be make choices (none / 0) (#55)
    by ricosuave on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:49:16 PM EST
    when you have nothing at stake.  Hillary (like everyone else in the Senate) had to make a real choice when it came to voting on that resolution.  If it just said "The US should invade Iraq" then it would have been a simple no.  

    But the republicans, as much as they can be jerks, are not idiots.  They write these things to put people like Clinton in a quandry.  They have to choose between real things with downsides on either choice.  In this case, Senators had to choose between a resolution that authorized force following international action and agreement, or rejecting that resolution and allowing Bush to interpret it however he wants.  (I think he would have probably announced that there was no support for working with the international community, he would have invaded anyway, and all of the republicans would have said for years that democrats passed up a chance to have a final round of inspections which would have averted the war.)  

    Even Obama said he did not know how he would have voted on the resolution, which was a pretty frank admission that his supporters like to pretend didn't happen.  Just like they pretend he didn't pull his anti-war speech off his website when he ran for US Senate, and they pretend he didn't endorse pro-war Joe Lieberman over anti-war Ned Lamont.

    Everyone knew that Bush wanted to invade Iraq.  Everyone knew that Bush would invade whether this resolution passed or not.  Pretending that this resolution was the only thing that allowed him to invade, and pretending that the defeat of this resolution would have avoided the invasion is just  fantasy.

    I thought those of us on the left were supposed to be in the "reality-based" community.

    Parent

    Just because you pick the right answer (none / 0) (#118)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:48:02 PM EST
    doesn't mean you arrived at that answer in a sound way.

    On a 4-choice multiple choice question, you have a 25% chance of getting it right. And if you pick the right answer, does that mean you knew the answer?

    No.

    Just because Obama picked the right position, doesn't mean he knew it was the right one. What matters is how he arrived at the decision to oppose the war, not whether he opposed it.

    Parent

    unbelievable (none / 0) (#150)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:08:26 PM EST
    Well... you seem to be implying that Obama didn't come about his answer in a sound way.

    Would you care to back up your baseless assertions?

    Again - he was right, even when everyone else thought he was wrong.

    Hillary was wrong, even when everyone else thought she was right.

    but go ahead - bash Obama for making the right call even amidst widespread disagreement.  

    Parent

    I'm not saying (none / 0) (#151)
    by ahazydelirium on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:23:14 PM EST
    that he necessarily made the choice for the wrong reasons. It was more a general statement about this clamoring to proclaim how he was always on the right side. As you plainly do in your comment. Being right is only half of it, and you can't ignore the fact that even bad judgments and leadership will once in a while put you in the right. My point is NOT about Obama. It's more about the mentality behind this "king of the hill" argument. If you're right, you're right, you're right. No critical thought whatsoever.

    Although, I will point out that I'm not familiar with any interviews or speeches by Obama that specifically mention the justifications for his opposition to the Iraq War before he came to the Senate. His mythic 2002 anti-war speech offers little in the way of sound reasons for opposing it other than the remark concerning "no imminent threat." True, albeit, that remark seems shaky when juxtaposed with this sentence from the same speech: "Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity."

    His speech was right, and his opposition to the war was right, and our opposition to the war was right. My only concern is that people are focusing too much on that rather than the knowledge that led to the right decision. As I said before, a right choice is hollow if it doesn't have the right reasoning.

    Parent

    looked foolish? (none / 0) (#25)
    by tworivers on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:07:12 PM EST
    He may have looked foolish at the time, but in retrospect he looks wise.

    As do Feingold and Boxer and several other Dem senators who were brave enough to go against the tide of public sentiment (and the avalanche of hype the Bush administration was pushing).

    Don't get me wrong, I'm very disappointed with Obama's lack of leadership on Iraq since he got in the Senate.  His record on Iraq since joining the senate is substantively no different than Hillary's.

    But to make some remark about how he looked foolish - who cares now how he looked then?
    The point is, he was right then.  Yes, i know it was alot easier for him to take such a stand as an Illinois senator than it was for Hillary in the US Senate.  But the fact remains.

    Parent

    Stopped clocks are right twice a day... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    Speaking only for myself...

    I don't think he was either wise or prophetic.

    Back then, he looked like a Democratic politician running for the Senate on an anti-war/anti-war funding strategy...one that shifted once he got into office. His votes on Iraq have been a lot more cautious...complete with his apparent opposition to the Murtha plan, a plan I rather liked in that it seemed practical and pragmatic when it came to a reasonable and responsible withdrawal of troops at the beginning of what was quickly becoming a heated civil war.

    Parent

    hmmm (none / 0) (#64)
    by tworivers on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:36 PM EST
    So by that rationale, are Senators Boxer and Feingold stopped clocks also?

    i guess they were just lucky too.

    I admitted that Obama's record on Iraq since joining the senate is substantively no better than Hillary's.  And I am disappointed in Obama for this very reason, as I see there is a disconnect between his words and his actions.

    The truth is, both Hillary's and Obama's records on Iraq the last several years are pretty bad.

    Parent

    actually.... (none / 0) (#156)
    by kredwyn on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 09:17:08 PM EST
    that line was snark. Remember that stuff?

    The point is that I don't buy the "he's prophetic" premise.

    Both Feingold and Boxer had a hell of a lot more information than he did. And I would say that theirs wound up being more of an educated guess.

    Parent

    He actually (none / 0) (#66)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:56 PM EST
    back off his stance on the Iraq war when running for Senate. He wasn't in a heated race at the time. He ran against Alan Keyse, who wasn't even form Illinois.

    He gave the 2004 speech at Dem convention. He had backed off his war stance.

    Parent

    This is all of topic (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by echinopsia on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST
    and beside the point.

    Bush got us there. Period. No amount of blaming and second-guessing changes that. It is completely non-constructive.

    Now let's talk about who can get us out, K?

    I say Hillary.

    Parent

    Have you read her plan? (none / 0) (#142)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:29:38 PM EST
    She said we ain't leaving.  We have "interests".  Not sure what "we" she is talking about, I have no interests there and no interest in being there.

    Parent
    I was (none / 0) (#152)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:33:47 PM EST
    answering some misinformation on the OFF topic above.

    Of course Hillary will be the one to get us out of Iraq!

    Parent

    Wanna bet? (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:54:08 PM EST
    I'll give you all 3 of the "electable" candidates for the price of one.

    You name the stakes, payable to talkleft.

    My money is on us in Iraq in 2012.

    Parent

    He did back off... (none / 0) (#163)
    by kredwyn on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:01:41 AM EST
    But since he's been running for POTUS nominee, it feels like he's stepped it up again.

    Parent
    Most Senators (none / 0) (#47)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:38:24 PM EST
    did NOT read the National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq.

    One of the few who actually read the NIE was Dick Durban ..... who was one of four Democratic senators (the others being Sens. Bob Graham, Feinstein, and Levin) to ask George Tenet, the Director of Central Intelligence, to prepare a NIE on the status of Iraq's WMD programs.

    Obama was not in the Senate at the time.

    Parent

    Senator Kerry recently sd. he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by oculus on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:18:20 PM EST
    read the NIE b/4 the vote either.

    Parent
    Neither (none / 0) (#97)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    did Harry Reid.

    Parent
    And Jay Rockefeller DID (none / 0) (#127)
    by tree on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:01:50 PM EST
    read the report and he voted FOR AUMF.

    Parent
    And (none / 0) (#98)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:22:51 PM EST
    And that is shameful. It doesn't mean we should celebrate people that are derelict in their duty to this nation.

    Parent
    Derelict in (none / 0) (#113)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:37:11 PM EST
    their duty... we would be voting in a whole new Congress every election. That would be a whole new thread.

    Parent
    How exactly (none / 0) (#8)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    is her plan materially any different?

    So she promises that within 60 days of being in office she will come up with a plan to get the soldiers out of Iraq.  How is that any different that Obama's plan?

    I believe they both want to get out of Iraq.  But they both realize it isn't simply a matter of folding up the tents and leaving.  

    If Hillary doesn't want Obama to keep bringing up her war vote perhaps she should stop questioning his experience and judgment because that implicitly brings her's into examination.

    Are you saying, "Me too, Hillary"? (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:30:15 PM EST
    Yeah.... (none / 0) (#18)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:56:22 PM EST
    ya can't just leave the Iraqis to determine their own future...there's money to be made in the desert.

    Parent
    She's going to end it without the (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:57:56 PM EST
    use of mercs, just our good ole American sweat and tears that got us into this.  No hired guns though without a conscience or a chain of command.  That's a profound difference if you are a serving soldier or a soldier family.

    Parent
    No Mercs In Iraq (none / 0) (#22)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:00:15 PM EST
    Doesn't mean no mercs. Her position is not absolute regarding the use of them in Afghanistan for example.

    Parent
    Are you sure? (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:37:42 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure the legislation she sponsored bans the use of mercs in all U.S. war zones starting in 2009.  It doesn't only pertain to Iraq.

    Parent
    The proposed legislation does (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    ban contractors in all war zones.  Only employees of the US government, includes military, will be allowed even for protective purposes, etc.  Buh Bye Blackwater.


    Parent
    If it was only Blackwater anymore (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    they have small corporate mercs running check points and flying their corporation flags at the check points.  This has turned into a grand freak war.

    Parent
    You're preaching to the choir on that :-) (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:52:47 PM EST
    just curious... (none / 0) (#147)
    by mindfulmission on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:51:28 PM EST
    ... how are war zones defined?

    does a war have to be declared to have a war zone?

    Parent

    Here (none / 0) (#82)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:07:58 PM EST
    We are staying in Afghanistan:

    Our ability to win the war in Afghanistan is at stake.

    And here is the bit about mercs:

    In addition to removing American troops from Iraq, I will also work to remove armed private military contractors who are conducting combat-oriented and security functions in Iraq. For five yeas their behavior and lack of supervision and accountability have often eroded our credibility, endangered U.S. and Iraqi lives and undermined our mission. Now, Senator Obama and I have a substantive disagreement here. He won't rule out continuing to use armed private military contractors in Iraq to do jobs that historically have been done by the U.S. military or government personnel. When I am president I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors. With the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors.
    I've already cosponsored the Stop Security Outsourcing Act requiring that security services for personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission be provided only by federal government personnel.

    Even though she may want to, it doesn't look like she is convinced that she will be able to pull that one off. Reducing.... with the goal of..... weak.

    Read the whole speech.

    Parent

    Not talking about the speech (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:16:13 PM EST
    we were talking about the legislation which she has proposed in the Senate.  Considering that has not passed at this time, I can understand the speech.

    Can you?  Or won't you try?  Weak, yes you are!


    Parent

    Because The Speech (none / 0) (#141)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:28:19 PM EST
    Talks about the limits of that legislation.
    Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.

    [snip]

    The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel.  It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses

    link

    From the speech:

    When I am president I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors. With the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors.

    I've already cosponsored the Stop Security Outsourcing Act requiring that security services for personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission be provided only by federal government personnel.

    Get the distinction? Banning mercs from working at embassies in Iraq is waaaay different than banning mercs  in Iraq.


    Parent

    I get the non distinction (none / 0) (#154)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 07:56:21 PM EST
    but you obviously don't.  The purported reason for Blackwater and the other merc in Iraq and Afghanistan is to provide security services to said diplomatic and consular missions.  The contracts do not cover combat services.

    You are nitpicking on what is no real difference, as is your usual want.  Tell me again, what part of this is so difficult?  But you don't want to see it and will probably continue your dishonest argument.  Find someone who gives a rat's a** about what you think next time.


    Senator Clinton Cosponsors Legislation to Ban Use of Private Security Contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan

    Washington, DC - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced today that she has cosponsored legislation to ban the use of Blackwater and other private mercenary firms in Iraq.

    "From this war's very beginning, this administration has permitted thousands of heavily-armed military contractors to march through Iraq without any law or court to rein them in or hold them accountable.  These private security contractors have been reckless and have compromised our mission in Iraq.  The time to show these contractors the door is long past due.  We need to stop filling the coffers of contractors in Iraq, and make sure that armed personnel in Iraq are fully accountable to the U.S. government and follow the chain of command," said Senator Clinton.

    The legislation requires that all personnel at any U.S. diplomatic or consular mission in Iraq be provided security services only by Federal Government Personnel.  It also includes a whistleblower clause to protect contract personnel who uncover contract violations, criminal actions, or human rights abuses.

    By the way, those other contractors mentioned in the last paragraph are not mercenaries.  Truck drivers and other personnel will still be there or is that too big a problem for you.


    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#155)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 08:32:18 PM EST
    Not about Afghanistan. This is about Iraq. The legislature HRC is pushing is for a no  merc zone in Iraq but only for embassies.

    Other mercs in Iraq are not affected by the bill. At some point in the future, HRC is hoping to persuade the Joint Chiefs of Staff to eliminate all mercs in Iraq if she becomes president.

    Parent

    What other mercs in Iraq? (none / 0) (#161)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:20:28 PM EST
    besides those in security assignment for diplomats and consular services?  What are they doing?

    Earlier you said she did not include Afghanistan. You are a bigger bs'er than I thought.


    Parent

    BS? Hahahah You Show Your Ignorance (none / 0) (#162)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 11:33:42 PM EST
    What other mercs in Iraq? besides those in security assignment for diplomats and consular services?  What are they doing?
    The contractors that HRC talks about here.  
    When I am president I will ask the Joint Chiefs for their help in reducing reliance on armed private military contractors. With the goal of ultimately implementing a ban on such contractors.

    And the ones MilitaryTracy mentioned up thread,

    If it was only Blackwater anymore (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:09 PM EST
    they have small corporate mercs running check points and flying their corporation flags at the check points.  This has turned into a grand freak war.

    In response to your misrepresentation of HRC's bill:

    The proposed legislation does (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:46:48 PM EST
    ban contractors in all war zones.  Only employees of the US government, includes military, will be allowed even for protective purposes, etc.  Buh Bye Blackwater.

    You obviously not paying attention.

    And remember the four Blackwater mercs that were killed in Falluja? Bodies hung and burned, remember? People like them are not covered by HRC's  bill.

    Oh and Hillary's bill, H.R. 4102, The Stop Outsourcing Security Act, does  only applies to Iraq, which if my geography is correct means Afghanistan is not covered by the bill.

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:02:36 AM EST
    Her Legislation is to remove mercs from only from embassies and diplomatic missions and only in Iraq.

    You can read about it here.

    Parent

    fine (none / 0) (#33)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:17:42 PM EST
    However that doesn't address how she plans to get our troops out of Iraq.

    FTR, I think she is kidding herself if she thinks that getting rid of the mercs will happen simply by passing a law.  

    Logistically it isn't that easy.

    Parent

    She Has A Detailed Plan (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:22:58 PM EST
    Which looks more like staying than going to me. The key tipoffs for me are repeatedly qualifying withdrawal with the word 'responsible', and the other qualifier that national interests trump all.

    And she has said that the WOT in Iraq and at large will not end with her presidency.

    Obama is the same. McBush is the worst on all of though.

    Parent

    "Responsible" is a problem for you? (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by ricosuave on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:47 PM EST
    So do you support an "irresponsible" withdrawal from Iraq?

    Parent
    No such thing, imo... (none / 0) (#119)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:51:53 PM EST
    All withdrawal is responsibile.

    Staying in any way, shape, or form is irresponsible.

    Parent

    Responsible To Whom (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:06:21 PM EST
    Is the question. If we were going to be responsible to the troops they must come home ASAP. Responsible to Iraq? Israel? The greater region? US national interests? The American people? Oil companies?

    Responsible to whom, generates many different answers about how fast we will be leaving.

    Parent

    Agreed (none / 0) (#37)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    I am a realist.  I opposed Iraq from day 1 because it seemed a truly stupid idea.

    But we're there.  And we can't just take out ball and go home.  

    All 3 know this. Hillary and Obama are hedging because they both know they can't simply leave.  McCain has absolutely no interest in leaving and is trying to goad us into war with Iran, so clearly he is not acceptable.  

    I wish we had more people like Russ Feingold in the Senate in 2002.

    Parent

    Sure We Can (none / 0) (#44)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:34:31 PM EST
    And we can't just take out ball and go home.  

    One of HRC's good points is that our presence there is why the country is flailing politically. HRC's other good point is that she is against Bush's plan to bind us with Iraq for many years after he is out of office.

    We can leave, and fast. We are occupying a foreign country and have no business being there. If they want us to become an ally after we leave that is up to them not us.

    Parent

    I'm not suggesting (none / 0) (#60)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:10 PM EST
    that we stay there for 10 years.  But we aren't leaving in 90 days either.

    Parent
    How does it look more like staying (none / 0) (#48)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:38:47 PM EST
    than going?

    Parent
    All The Hedging (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:50:55 PM EST
    As opposed to flat out saying that we are leaving and that the Iraqis can manage on their own. She also says that:

    As we bring our troops and contractors home, we cannot lose sight of our strategic interests in this region. The reality is that this war has made the terrorists stronger. Well, they may not have been in Iraq before the war, they are there now, and we cannot allow Iraq to become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorists who seek to attack us and our friends and allies. So let me be clear - under my plan, withdrawing from Iraq will not mean retreating from fighting terrorism in Iraq. That's why I will order small, elite strike forces to engage in targeted operations against al Qaeda in Iraq. This will protect Iraqi citizens, our allies, and our families right here at home.

    link

    The first time I read the speech she mentioned "Red China". Looks like she changed than, much better now it is only China.


    Parent

    Her plan is that we begin redeploying (none / 0) (#75)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:58:29 PM EST
    60 days after she takes office.  That's pretty cut and dry if you ask me.  You can't redeploy more than a combat brigade a month.  They have to hit the road with all of their equipment and drive to Kuwait, then all of the equipment has to be thoroughly cleaned and then taped down, strapped down, helicopters have to be completely bubble wrapped, lashed down and loaded onboard huge ships that will take between 30 to 45 days to get back to the U.S.  In the mean time the troops will be having to fall back and protect themselves from attack during their moves, and also they will have to respond to genocides that could crop up as they are taking their leave and the power vacuum is being filled in the areas they vacate.  Plus, as commander in chief she won't be giving us a whole lot of details that could or would help insurgents planning attacks against our troops as they move around and prepare to leave.

    Parent
    Yes, But (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:19:00 PM EST
    That is all dependent on forming a plan (60 days), getting  the "international community" to come in to take our place so that we can responsibly withdraw.

    There are parts that sound great, I wish I could believe that all the qualifications that have to be met before withdrawal will fall into place. Many of her constituents do not want to leave Iraq for various reasons, ergo all the qualifications.

    As much as I like HRC, I do not think that we have seen our last 'bring the troops home' mass protest.

    Parent

    Not according to her plan (none / 0) (#109)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:35:19 PM EST
    This is her plan per her site.

    Bring Our Troops Home. As President, one of Hillary's first official actions will be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She will direct them to draw up a clear, comprehensive plan for withdrawal that starts removing our troops within 60 days.  The plan for withdrawal will incorporate the most effective on-the-ground strategies and tactics to move personnel and equipment efficiently out of combat zones and then out of the country, and will focus on protecting our troops and reducing the risk of attacks as they come home.

    Says nothing about needing the international community onboard with her to begin withdrawal.

    Parent

    She Say It In (none / 0) (#125)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:00:04 PM EST
    From her speech:

    The second part of my plan involves working to secure stability within Iraq as we bring our troops home, stability that will be key to a successful withdrawal of our troops.

    [snip]

    When I'm president, we will pursue a more integrated strategy. We'll empower local leaders and use U.S. and international influence to press the Iraqis to reach political reconciliation, and I will call on the United Nations to strengthen its role in promoting this reconciliation.

    She says that the withdrawal will be first, but then say that for it to be successful Iraq must be stable. Successful meaning if Iraq is not stable the withdrawal will stop?

    I do not see stabilization in the region happening for a while, along the lines of US and Israeli interests.

    Part of her plan, albeit understated, is that Iraq is ours. I do not see that happening, especially without US troops occupying the country.

    Bottom line, I am not arguing for Obama as CIC. I believe that we are not leaving anytime soon given the choices we have for POTUS.


    Parent

    You're reading into that what you want (none / 0) (#171)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 01:45:26 PM EST
    If the country stays away from genocide/civil war we can withdraw two combat brigades probably every 45 days is what the military will tell you those words mean.  If the whole country breaks out into civil war we will probably have to stop our redeployments until it comes under control.  I realize that somebody who isn't in the military doesn't consider the war on the ground much other than we shouldn't be there but we are there and some feel we have a responsibility to do what we can about the bloodshed that will occur within the power vacuum we are leaving behind in the wake of our withdrawal.

    She has no understated plan that Iraq is ours, once again that is what you want to read into her words.  Talk to someone who has been to Iraq and they will tell you how much of Iraq is ours.  Hillary has been to Iraq.  Have you?  I haven't, I haven't had to face the reality of three SUV's with darkened windows racing together in unison and body armor and seven armed guards and driving 70 mph everywhere I go being flanked by an attack helicopter.

    Parent

    What I Want (none / 0) (#172)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:08:40 PM EST
    Is the troops to leave now, without any conditions.  There is a civil war on, and US presence is exacerbating that war not stemming it, imo. The Iraqi people and our responsibility to their safety and freedom has been Bush's mantra as well.

    Only 29% of Iraqis believe that US withdrawal will make Iraq less safe.

    Obama's plan and Clinton's plan are identical and they are based on Iraq being stable, aka winning. I do not see that happening until all troops leave so that the Iraqi government can base their actions on Iraqi self interests as opposed to sucking up to the US occupying force. A catch 22.

    I don't think that we have any business in Afghanistan either.

    For me this is not about the election, it is about getting out of Iraq. I truly believe that you and I will meet at future anti war marches demanding that BHO or HRC withdraw all troops as promised.

    OK I am a pessimist on the issue, I admit it. What I also believe is that your wishes are interfering with your otherwise healthy dose of skepticism. Grains of salt should be flying on this issue.

    Parent

    Uggh (none / 0) (#173)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM EST
    Compare BHO's speech and HRC's speech. They are the same. If HRC and BHO deliver as promised, we will be fighting wars in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and possibly Iran. Both point to Iran as the biggest threat to the middle east, a standard BushCo theme, and quite wrong imo. Elephant in the room.

    Neither candidate has repudiated the WOT or that it can be won. This is BushCo thinking. Terrorism cannot be fought on a battlefield it must be addressed by adjusting foreign policy. And policy in the Mid-East is about as hypocritical as you can get as it stands now.  Neither candidate has addressed that issue, because, at best, they are both trying to show that they are at least as good warriors as McCain, at worst they are showing their commitment to continue the status quo US policy in the Mid East without variance.

    Parent

    Squeaky, you're getting war paranoid on me (none / 0) (#174)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 04:53:52 PM EST
    Friend, we are so military warm body broken.  If I could let you read the last email from my husband's career manager literally begging him back into the combat zone I would but I can't because it isn't proper.  We are up, 20 years in in January and strongarming soldiers and stop lossing them has had a very undesireable long term consequence, it has killed the feelings of commitment that many soldiers could have or would have naturally had.  So this email was very respectful of the fact that my husband would be eligible for retirement very soon but begged him to come back to the fight.  Our son has a major foot surgery coming up to literally rebuild his clubbed feet.  After that he will be in a wheel chair for two months and he will not be able to put weight on his feet and then he will spend the rest of the year relearning how to walk on new feet.  My husband declined the offer but let DOD know that if they will allow him to care for his child and family through this he will return the favor gladly by staying in uniform stateside doing everything that he can for them and they agreed.  Looks like we'll be giving more than 20 because they need us so badly.  The United States isn't going to war with anybody else anytime soon.  We will do our best in Afghanistan but nobody is signing up to die for B.S. nor should they.  There is plenty of room for diplomacy with Pakistan and things have improved lately in our relations with Pakistan IN SPITE OF GEORGE BUSH and his incompetency.  Without mercenary forces though we aren't fighting with anybody who isn't openly trying to kill us these days.  Push to ban the use of mercenaries and the people will regain their antiwar voices much more clearly and much more early!

    Parent
    My Heart (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 05:49:31 PM EST
    Is with you MilitaryTracy. I have always been touched by your pain and great wit through it all. Your voice gives me some insight and has opened up my mind big time about a reality that is all too easily ignored. I hope you are right in your faith about the next  Dem president ending the war.

    I do not feel paranoid, just distrustful. Neither HRC or BHO has said what I want to hear. Sounds more like pol talk to me than anything else and in my experience that usually does not pan out.

    Parent

    Hey, I feel distrustful too (none / 0) (#176)
    by Militarytracy on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 06:56:01 PM EST
    If there were any more juice left in the troops and the equipment we would be staying until it was gone.  I have no doubt of that.  I don't know why leaders are stupid once the war is underway, to the bitter end every time.  I must give credit where credit is due to those who pushed for this all volunteer military after Vietnam to prevent the next Vietnam.  The only way we will know for sure if they were 100% right and their new military structuring worked is if we had a crystal ball that really worked but I think they were right.

    Parent
    The Out of Iraq Caucus (none / 0) (#57)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:50:25 PM EST
    endorsed Sen Clinton yesterday.  Sounds good to me but fwiw.

    Parent
    "34 Admirals and Generals" (none / 0) (#160)
    by diogenes on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 10:06:06 PM EST
    If the endorsements of admirals and generals are to decide the election then you might as well cancel it and acclaim John McCain president right now.

    Parent
    Hillary Is Loved (none / 0) (#10)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:51:00 PM EST
    By the military because she is no pansy, IOW she is a hawk. In her speech she gave far too many qualifications regarding withdrawal for me to feel comfortable. She also has targeted Afghanistan and even Red China. Perhaps she feels that she must talk tough to dispel any notions that she will not rise to the task as CIC, that is no comfort to me.

    I do not think Obama will get the troops out any sooner, although his talk has been less hawkish than Hillary's.

    She shares the fear (none / 0) (#72)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM EST
    widespread among democrats of a certain generation, of looking weak on foreign policy.  The GOP has done a great job exploiting this fear, with disastrous consequences.

    Parent
    This isn't good (none / 0) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:52:09 PM EST
    Most people still prefer McCain to take the "3 am call" - even among very and moderate liberals (I put the thread on two lines so it won't overlap, so I don't think you can cut it and past it in one try)

    http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News
    2008/03/18/poll_mccain_preferred_to_take_3_am_call/1579

    Thank you Jeralyn (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 03:55:29 PM EST
    I'd put it another way. Obama, even today, wants to focus on who did what five years ago

    What happened five years ago does nothing to help those of us trapped in the middle of this situation right now - both Iraqi and American!  Listening to one of our presidential candidates go on and on about it like it is the end all and be all of everything only brings about a sense of hopelessness for me because it hurts today, IT REALLY REALLY HURTS TODAY AND THE PAIN IS TODAY'S PAIN

    Of course five years ago matters (none / 0) (#32)
    by thefncrow on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:15:41 PM EST
    This is a matter of judgment.

    Five and a half years ago, Hillary Clinton stood up on Capitol Hill and cast a vote to go to war with Iraq.  She did it without reading the National Intelligence Estimate, despite the warnings from fellow Democrats who opposed the war, who suggested that they really did need to read the document before they cast any vote.

    Of course, once she decided to run for President, OK, well, now Iraq was a mistake.  However, she would claim, it wasn't her mistake, even though she voted for it.

    She's tried to play off her vote as not being a vote for war, despite everyone knowing, as the votes were cast, that the vote was precisely that.

    She's tried to play it off as that she was duped by George Bush.

    She's tried to excuse the vote by saying that, in hindsight, it was a bad idea.  The reality is, it was a bad idea from the very moment she cast her vote.

    In short, in the five and a half years that have progressed since that vote, Hillary Clinton has never taken responsibility for her mistake.  That speaks tremendously to her judgment.

    Now that she's on the campaign trail, and she's blamed everyone and everything else possible for why she decided to vote for war in Iraq, without taking one iota of personal responsibility for her decision, you want to let her be the one making the decision about when to end the war?

    She could solve all this right now, by just coming clean, by having a press conference and doing exactly what John Edwards did.  She could admit that, even without the benefit of hindsight, her vote in Iraq was a mistake, that she deeply regrets having made that mistake, that she's learned from her mistake, that she takes responsibility for her vote, and that it is incumbent upon her to be part of the solution as she was part of the problem.

    If she'd just own up to it, I could at least breathe easy and think that, just maybe, we'll be alright with either Hillary or Obama in the White House.  What I absolutely cannot abide, though, is 4 more years of a hardheaded and irresponsible President that refuses to own up to the mistakes they made, whether their name be Bush, McCain, or Clinton.

    Parent

    I see you have (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:28:56 PM EST
    swallowed the talking points whole.  Here is an excellent post on Clinton and the AUMF Iraq Resolution, including the speech she gave on the Senate floor.  But if you're disinclined to go over and read it, here's an exerpt:

    "Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

    Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections."

    It was the wrong choice, we all know this in retrospect.  However, to water it down to a talking point without taking into consideration all factors that were at play at that time makes light of the awesome responsibility our legislators are sometimes asked to carry.

    Parent

    Thanks for the link. (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Angel on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:32:20 PM EST
    It's a rationalization (5.00 / 0) (#85)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:12:10 PM EST
    It was when she gave it.  It was when John Kerry said the exact same thing.

    It's not like they didn't know EXACTLY what was going on.  Let's go back down memory lane and see what one of our more cogent and thoughtful Senators thought of the vote....

    Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, Mr. President, I still don't believe that the President and the Administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people that we should invade Iraq at this time.

    Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, Mr. President, the Administration's arguments just don't add up. They don't add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al Qaeda and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before us.

    My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world, where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with really very minimal justification.

    more

    But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government, I think the President has got to do better. He's got to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we've received by various agencies, Mr. President.

    This notion that the only responsible vote was the one to give a President, who already showed a burning desire to invade Iraq, the authorization to do exactly that.

    If I give an alcoholic a bottle of Jack Daniels because he promised he won't drink it, I am either a fool or lying about my desire not to give it to him.

    Parent

    Excellent point (none / 0) (#71)
    by ricosuave on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:57:06 PM EST
    And I think you picked the best part of that speech.  You can pretend that there was no consideration for that vote other than war/peace and pretend that Hillary was pro-war at the time, but you have to ignore the reality of what she said at the time and what she has done since.

    But people who repeat the "she didn't even read the NIE" slander are probably not interested in the real story.

    If you've never read her floor statement, I would urge you to do so.  It is actually an excellent speech which highlights the difference between Obama's style and her substance.

    Maybe it would be better if she had mentioned her grandmother, though...

    Parent

    Ah, taking Bush at his word (none / 0) (#74)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:58:14 PM EST
    always the sign of good judgment.

    Parent
    Good judgement (none / 0) (#79)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:03:02 PM EST
    argument is not one that you should get into right now.

    Parent
    So you think she was right to trust Bush? (none / 0) (#80)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:05:09 PM EST
    If you can't answer that, don't presume to tell me what arguments I do or don't want to get into.

    Parent
    Who turned out being right trusting Bush? (none / 0) (#105)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:28:54 PM EST
    A whole bunch of people did for a whole variety of different things that all went very badly.

    Parent
    JJE (none / 0) (#106)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:29:03 PM EST
    I don't go by your rules... I can presume that judgement calls have been faulty on both sides.

    Right or wrong....We all know that Sen Obama is having problems with "judgement calls" right now. Should he be the nominee... this worries me.

    What is with the .... "If you can't answer that"?
    Weither I choose to answer or not... does not validify an argument.

    Parent

    what is obama's plan (none / 0) (#144)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:44:31 PM EST
    for getting us out of iraq?  does he even have one?  please enlighten me as to what obama plans to do.

    Parent
    Same as Hillary... (none / 0) (#146)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:49:37 PM EST
    teach, same as Hillary.

    Parent
    I didn't try to argue it (none / 0) (#81)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    was good judgment.  I think the vote was valid in the context of the time, but in retrospect was a mistake.  I do take issue with folks who would water down the issue to a snarky talking point.  If the vote had gone the other way and another attack had happened on American soil, we would be having a very different conversation today.  My point being, we cannot predict what the future holds, only make the best decisions within our own understanding and ability.  

    Parent
    Your general points are valid (none / 0) (#88)
    by JJE on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:13:34 PM EST
    But it's not just a talking point.  You could either vote for war because you thought regime change was a good idea, vote for war because you trusted Bush would just use it to pressure inspectors, or vote against it.  Clinton chose the second option.  Too few chose the third, which was politically risky at the time but has been vindicated by events.

    Parent
    Obama didn't have to vote for the war (none / 0) (#107)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:29:52 PM EST
    though.  He wasn't able to.  He can say whatever he wants now but he was risking nothing that day when everyone had to vote but him.

    Parent
    By talking points (none / 0) (#110)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:35:51 PM EST
    I wasn't referring to you specifically, but more the Hillary voted for war meme. I actually think you broke it down rather well here.  

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#87)
    by thefncrow on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:13:33 PM EST
    I know precisely what the AUMF says, and I could even agree on some level that Iraq did need to be threatened with military force.  But let's cut right to it here, everyone and their mother knew what the AUMF was intended for, and what the passage of the bill would lead to, and anyone who claims otherwise is not fit to be a representative of the people in Congress.

    I'll admit, I used to parrot that line too, back in 2004 when we were all having to choke down the idea of President Kerry.  It wasn't a particularly nice idea, but it was better than a second term of Bush.  Even Obama softened his stance so that he wasn't attacking the Democratic candidate for President that year.  We all knew it was a load of dung, but we knew what the alternative was, and so we choked it down.

    23 senators and 133 representatives knew better than that, and exercised the proper judgment to vote against the AUMF.  They weren't fooled.  They understood precisely what they were voting for.  It wasn't an easy stand either, since the AUMF vote was being scheduled in a way to use the result as a cudgel against Democratic candidates in the 2002 mid-term elections, but they stood up nonetheless, because they knew what capitulation meant.  

    (Of course, Hillary was elected in 2000, meaning she wasn't up for re-election, and she doesn't get that excuse.)

    I even understand your need to brush off the AUMF as not a vote for war.  We've all been there.  But if you've gone so far as to really think that the AUMF vote was not really a vote for war, you've gone beyond that into self-delusion.

    Parent

    100% right (none / 0) (#94)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:18:02 PM EST
    I couldn't agree more with this.

    I remember defending Kerry's vote vigorously because he was the candidate I was stuck with.  

    I see no reason to do it again.

    It was a bad decision by Hillary.  End of story.  It doesn't disqualify her from office by any stretch.  But her unwillingness to step up to the mic and say "Yeah I made a mistake there" certainly doesn't improve my opinion of her.

    Parent

    She has said it was a mistake. (none / 0) (#103)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:26:02 PM EST
    She almost said that (none / 0) (#138)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:21:27 PM EST
    in a debate recently but really pointed all the blame for the mistake at Bush in an attempt to exonerate herself.

    Parent
    My heavens! (none / 0) (#139)
    by tree on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:24:59 PM EST
    Actually blaming Bush for the Iraq War??!! How despicable!

    (Yes, this is snark.)

    Parent

    Hillary and the rest... (none / 0) (#148)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:51:44 PM EST
    do their jobs maybe Bush is stopped.

    Untold people might be alive today.

    Parent

    I would appreciate it (none / 0) (#102)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:25:28 PM EST
    if you leave out assuming what I think and attacking me personally in your replies.

    I am not "brushing off the AUMF" merely putting more context into what, in my opinion, was a difficult vote. I believe Clinton when she says she would take President Bush at his word to find a diplomatic resolution to the problem.  It was a bad choice, as we know, in retrospect.  23 senators and 133 representatives made a different choice, one that was right, also in retrospect.  But the key here is in retrospect. I give her the benefit of the doubt that it was a difficult choice to make (much as I do to Edwards and even Kerry) and that she did made it with good faith in our President and with understanding of what was needed in the region at that time.  What really matters now is I think she has the better plan to get us out. We can wail about what happened 5 years ago till the cows come home but it's not going to change what happened nor will it bring our troops home any sooner.  

    Parent

    It's about trust (none / 0) (#123)
    by thefncrow on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:58:24 PM EST
    Let me just preface this by saying I doubt we agree, and perhaps it is best if we simply agree to disagree.

    That said, I have serious doubts that if anyone could go back to what was going on in 2002 having no knowledge of what followed, to watch all that news coverage, the things President Bush and his people were saying, all the way up to the vote for the AUMF, that person could have no doubt about what was actually going to occur if the AUMF passed.

    Frankly, my personal belief is that anyone who truly didn't see that coming has such poor judgment that I doubt they should never represent people in Congress, let alone sit in the White House.

    So, do I think half of Congress is just really that dumb?  No, I do not.

    I don't buy that Hillary Clinton though Bush would use the power he had been granted in a responsible manner.  I actually thought the same thing of John Kerry in 2004, but this country was so far gone by that point that I felt we could elect a cardboard stand-up President, and less damage would be done to the country than if Bush got a second term, and so I played along with the game of "We really thought the AUMF would be used diplomatically."

    The reality is, I don't think anyone who voted for the AUMF had any doubts that it would lead to war.  I think the diplomacy angle was really used by politicians who may have knew that it was the wrong thing to do, but who felt they couldn't politically afford to vote against it.  Of course, you can't tell the people you're representing that you just voted for war based on political expediency, and there really was a justification in holding a war over Saddam's head(which is what a smart President would have done), and out of this was born the narrative of how these people could vote for the AUMF and "believe" that they had not voted for war.

    Of course, we don't have a time machine, and we can't go back in time and stop the war before it began.  But one of the key issues this election is going to be how to handle Iraq, and both candidates, not being incumbent Presidents and thus outside the loop on critical information, have plans on Iraq that basically boil down to "Trust me."  And what I perceive as duplicity on the part of Senator Clinton does not lead me to trust her on this.

    Parent

    I think it is about (none / 0) (#135)
    by cloudy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:15:22 PM EST
    perception.  I think we both agree that it was the wrong choice, I just don't see her being duplicitous in this.  I understand why you do though and why you would have reservations.  What are you thoughts on Obama and Iraq?  

    Parent
    I see your memory has been dimmed (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:31:40 PM EST
    by the passage of time. The AUMF was NOT a vote for war. Speak accurately about the subject, or not at all.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:40:47 PM EST
    133 House members and 23 senators thought it was enough of a  a vote for war that they voted no. Kennedy sure was not about to trust Bush which he made clear in his speech.

    Parent
    Too bad Kennedy trusted Bush on NCLB. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:43:22 PM EST
    That's a non-answer, btw.

    Parent
    What (none / 0) (#56)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:49:41 PM EST
    The Authorization to use Military Force in Iraq was not a vote for war?

    Are you trying to wiggle into some argument that since it wasn't a Declaration of War it doesn't count?

    Parent

    Been over this before and it (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by RalphB on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:51:34 PM EST
    was not a vote for war.  If you'd like search for the other posts where it's been explained.

    Parent
    Yeah that's what I figured (none / 0) (#68)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:53:36 PM EST
    And Vietnam wasn't a war either.

    Total copout answer.  

    Parent

    Read her floor speech (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ricosuave on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:59:03 PM EST
    And then come back and explain how she was pro-war at the time.  Or is it only Obama's (Deval Patrick's?) words that matter?

    Parent
    She Is A Politician (none / 0) (#84)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:10:51 PM EST
    The speech means nothing, her vote is what says it all.

    Parent
    Fine, then Obama's speech doesn't matter (none / 0) (#89)
    by Militarytracy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:13:39 PM EST
    only where he chose to go to church.  Silly argument for you squeaky.  Someone has hacked into your account or something.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#111)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:36:06 PM EST
    I read several speeches that Senators gave before the AUMF vote. Two things happened with HRC. Lots of talk about not wanting war and giving a madman the keys to unleash a war. For me the talk falls into the category of politician BS and the vote is what counts.

    Had she also voted against the AUMF I would buy her talk.

    Obama's Rev. Wright speech, was different, imo.

    The better comparison for me is his anti-war speech before he was a Senator. It was just Pol talk because once he became Senator he showed no leadership, or votes, to back up the rhetoric of that speech. It was as empty as HRC's AUMF speech, imo.

    Parent

    You know.. (none / 0) (#129)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:03:33 PM EST
    He was a pol too when he gave that speech?  He gave it at anti-war rally with very anti-war constituents - not exactly a profile in courage.

    Parent
    Not Shilling For Obama (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:12:28 PM EST
    So you can stop the pissing contest. My point was not about how brave he was for giving the speech, but that he did nothing, zero, zilch, to end the war as a Senator, so the speech means nothing. Just like HRC and her antiwar talk before she voted yes to the AUMF.

    My guess is that Obama would have voted the same as HRC, considering that almost all of their votes have been the same.

    Parent

    My bad (none / 0) (#137)
    by cmugirl on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:17:33 PM EST
    I read it wrong.

    Sorry

    Parent

    No Problem (none / 0) (#143)
    by squeaky on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:30:34 PM EST
    It is understandable given the heat.

    Parent
    Then you must love obama! (none / 0) (#93)
    by ricosuave on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:17:41 PM EST
    Never had to vote on the war, so no opportunity to disappoint!  

    (I infer from other comments of yours that I have read recently that you do not love him, by the way.)

    Parent

    I'm not trying to wiggle out of anything. (none / 0) (#69)
    by MarkL on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:54:01 PM EST
    I'm objecting to distortions.

    Parent
    What are the distortions? (none / 0) (#78)
    by flyerhawk on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:01:56 PM EST
    The vote explicitly gave the President authority to use military force against Iraq.  It did limit the kind of force he could use in any way.

    Since it rescinded the need for a formal declaration of war.  It used the Congressional cop out, otherwise known as the War Powers Act of 1973, to allow Congress to give the President the green light without REQUIRING him to use military force, which a  declaration of war would have done.

    This isn't a criticism of Hillary per se. It is a criticism of the entire Congress, particularly the Democrats, for caving to Bush because they were scared of the political repercussions of no doing so.

    Parent

    what is obama's plan? (none / 0) (#145)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:45:40 PM EST
    Same as Hillary's...n/t (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:52:39 PM EST
    so where does obama (none / 0) (#164)
    by english teacher on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:42:12 AM EST
    outline his plan to begin bringing troops home in sixty days?  and what was power doing in that interview, freelancing?  if power speaks for obama, it sounds to me like he has no plan at all, except yet again to follow clinton's lead.  

    but if you can provide a link to obama's plan or spell out his specifics, i'm all ears.  

    Parent

    Google Is Your Friend (none / 0) (#165)
    by squeaky on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 12:53:20 AM EST
    His plan is to bring combat troops (none / 0) (#168)
    by JoeA on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 08:08:05 AM EST
    back over an 18 month period, 1 brigade per month over that period.  Samantha Power was only being honest in that she was confirming that the plan was subjec to revisions based on the reality on the ground and military advice,  however that this was the plan they would be using as a starting point.

    The idea that he is copying Hillary's "plan" is incorrect.

    Parent

    I don't need to see... (none / 0) (#170)
    by kdog on Thu Mar 20, 2008 at 10:37:06 AM EST
    either one of their misleading plans to know we ain't leaving Iraq.

    I've heard a lot of talk about leaving Iraq... a lil too much talk.

    Parent

    solve it all (none / 0) (#52)
    by wasabi on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:45:49 PM EST
    "She could solve all this right now, by just coming clean"

    That is a line that I hear way too often.

    Neither Obama or Clinton or McCain is going to get us out of Iraq any time soon.  We'll be much better off with a Democrat, but WE ARE NOT LEAVING soon.

    Parent

    You've misunderstood (none / 0) (#100)
    by thefncrow on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:23:40 PM EST
    When you saw "Solve it all", you assumed that meant Iraq.  On that much, you're right.  Hillary Clinton coming clean won't solve Iraq.

    That is not what I meant, however.

    My statement there was about Clinton's judgment, and how little trust people can put in it when she's spent five years attempting to shift blame to anyone or anything else, and vigorously deny any personal responsibility for her vote.  If she came clean, I could at least put that to bed, that she's not just in the typical politician mold, that she can accept responsibility and, yes, blame, when that is appropriate.

    This certainly qualifies as a situation where Hillary Clinton needs to take responsibility for the choice she made.  She has thus far refused to do so, and, as you say, you'll continue to hear people saying that she can clear up the mess by coming clean until she really does it.

    Parent

    Thank you for being sane.... (none / 0) (#126)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:01:11 PM EST
    I wish all democrats were as honest.

    The old reason I used to vote for Democrats, 10% less crookedly full of sh*t than Republicans...I can respect that position.

    Parent

    Hillary says (none / 0) (#104)
    by Jgarza on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:27:03 PM EST
    to look at what she has done as a sign of what she will do.  Except on the war in Iraq, pay no attention to that.

    Parent
    my god why can't the (none / 0) (#26)
    by english teacher on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:07:53 PM EST
    woman sit up straight?  what's with the william f. buckley slouch?  i know it's a silly complaint, but her posture in that interview just drove me nuts.  

    Mom? Is that you? (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Joelarama on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:11:23 PM EST
    :-)

    Parent
    english teachers and posture (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:12:07 PM EST
    sorry, I just had a flashback

    Parent
    Points off (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Wile ECoyote on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:13:10 PM EST
    for lack of Capitalizing.

    Parent
    in 2008
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    And anyone who follows politics knows this

    Vote was in 2002 (none / 0) (#54)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 04:47:28 PM EST
    fyi

    Parent
    Yes...But war Started in 2003 (none / 0) (#77)
    by TearDownThisWall on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:00:35 PM EST
    let's face it-
    Hillary Calculated that in 2008 (when she knew she would be running)....she would need to be seen as "tough" on Terrorism, "not afraid to fight", "national security" credentials...bla bla bla-

    Thankfully....because of her vote....she will never set foot in the Whitehouse again, unless invited by President Obama (or post Obama president) for cerimonies, or  ex president stuff


    Parent

    Let's get the (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by PlayInPeoria on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:09:58 PM EST
    facts!!
    The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

    The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."

    WMD was still unknown at the time. 42% of DEm Sen voted against the resolution.

    That means that more than half of the Dem Sen had it wrong... and by your logic ... do not deserve to hold office.

    Parent

    oh (none / 0) (#90)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:14:15 PM EST
    and most of them would not have held office after the election if they had not voted for it and it still would not have stopped the resolution.
    why people argue they should have dashed off a cliff is beyond me.
    and btw
    if Obama had been there he would have done the same thing everyone else did.  keep his job.

    Parent
    There ya go (none / 0) (#108)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:30:53 PM EST
    It's okay to send our troops to die in a quagmire if the alternative is your re-election campaign might have been tough. I am disgusted by Clinton supporters arguing that voting for war is justified if it keeps Republicans at bay.

    Not to mention plenty of Democrats voted against it and did just fine in their campaigns. It's not only a sick argument, it's an empirically incorrect argument.

    Parent

    actually sinistar (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:38:26 PM EST
    the POINT was the resolution would have passes with or without them.  the troops would have gone.
    and the senate would now be controlled by a large republican majority.
    please explain to us how what that would prove or who would have been helped by that.
    and as far as the heroes who voted against it.
    its called safe seats.


    Parent
    mulligan (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:45:44 PM EST
    I am doing that one over because I couldnt even read it myself.

    the POINT was the resolution would have passed with or without them.  the troops would have gone.
    and the senate would now be controlled by a large republican majority.
    please explain to us what that would prove or who would have been helped by that.
    and as far as the heroes who voted against it.
    its called safe seats.


    Parent

    republican (none / 0) (#121)
    by sinistar on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    I don't think voting like Republicans to keep seats in Democratic control is a victory. Hillary is trying to out-McCain McCain. What's the use in electing Democrats that roll over for Republican policy?

    I am uncompromising on this. If Hillary couldn't keep her seat by making good votes, defending those votes on the campaign trail, then give up your seat. Becoming a Republican whenever you're pressed on national security is not okay and harms the progressive movement.

    Parent

    I am probably the only one posting here (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:02:59 PM EST
    who knows what your name is a reference to.
    it is a game as quaint as your argument.

    Parent
    Damn right.... (none / 0) (#130)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 06:05:52 PM EST
    they don't deserve to hold office!

    Not a one!

    Has the democratic base no sense of decency or principles?  


    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#86)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Wed Mar 19, 2008 at 05:12:36 PM EST
    She knew the Democrats would lose in 2004 and therefore she'd be running in '08?  Well, if she has that kind of psychic ability, I definitely will vote for her!

    Parent