Hillary's Iraq Story Is Kind of Fairy Tale, Too
Twice since Bill and Hillary made their way onto the national stage has the United States been involved in a major war. And both times, both Clintons have spoken out of both sides of their mouths.
Hillary Clinton, of course, voted to authorize war with Iraq back in October 2002, after taking to the Senate floor and warning that Saddam Hussein had to “disarm or be disarmed.” At the same time, she rejected an alternative resolution authored by Michigan’s Carl Levin that would have required President Bush to seek international support for an invasion and to return to Congress if he failed to do so.
Back in those days, when the idea of war was politically popular and when most Americans saw an invasion of Iraq as a way of finishing what was started in the relatively seamless and painless Gulf War of 1991, Hillary won praise for showing “presidential” toughness and for casting a vote that would preserve—if not enhance—her White House ambitions. But then the disastrous occupation rendered support for the war politically toxic within the Democratic Party. So she changed her story.
“My vote was not a vote for pre-emptive war,” Hillary insisted on Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” only the latest time she’s made this assertion.
The war authorization vote in 2002, she contends, was merely designed to provide more leverage for international inspectors to gain access to Iraq. And she never, ever expected President Bush to launch the war unless the inspectors finished their job and provided a full accounting of what weaponry Saddam did and did not possess.
“When we were moving toward the preemptive war that George Bush decided to wage…we were getting information, finally, that would give us a basis for knowing,” Hillary said on Sunday. “I believe if the inspectors had been allowed to do their work, we would've learned that what Saddam Hussein had constructed was a charade.”
Even if you accept the idea that Clinton—despite heaps of evidence to the contrary at the time—really didn’t think the Bush administration was hell-bent on war in 2002, her story still doesn’t add up. The problem: In the weeks and days before the war began in March 2003, when it was obvious that Bush would ignore Hillary’s beloved inspectors and launch the war anyway, she was silent.
On the eve of the war, a New York newspaper surveyed the state’s Democratic Congressional delegation. 11 of them said that Bush had failed to make the case for war. Seven of them said that he had. Clinton refused to answer.
You would think that she would have been irate—and frantic to stop a war that she hadn’t voted to authorize. After all, according to her new narrative, she only voted for the resolution so that inspectors could do their work. And here was the President, thumbing his nose at those inspectors and using the authorization vote to plunge the country into war. But she uttered not a peep, and the invasion commenced.
Her disingenuousness on Iraq is doubly galling in light of her effort to portray Barack Obama as a vacillator who is afraid to take stands on politically sensitive subjects.
“You know,” she said on “Meet the Press,” “Senator Obama voted present 130 times in the state Senate. When you're President, you can't vote present. You have to make a decision.”
Apparently, she holds herself to a different standard—unless there’s another way to explain why she fell mute as President Bush took the country to war, and only months and years later began claiming he had done so under false pretenses. Next Page >
Nelson & Trafalgar
Derek George Montague Gardner (1914–2007) was one of the finest British marine painters of the 20th century, and his work continues to fascinate collectors on both sides of the Atlantic. He fought as an officer in the Royal Navy in World War II and, in 1942, was mentioned in dispatches for his distinguished service.
Read More »On Painting
Gerhard Richter's Claudius is one of the largest and most overwhelming of his colourful Abstract Paintings. Dating from 1986, this picture towers over the viewer at a height of over ten feet, absorbing us, swallowing us into a vast and turbulent universe of colour.
Read More »Marilyn Revisited
By the end of the 1970s, Andy Warhol was everywhere.He was endemic, up there with Elvis, Jesus and Coca-Cola. His silkscreen aesthetic was instantly recognisable - the Warhol look had been used on album covers, in ads and on the cover of Time magazine. Read More »
The Clintons have done the best they could for this nation. It is now time for their exit and perhaps past the batton on to Chelsea.
This election has revealed and continue to reveal so much about the Clintons that I pray they will now exit the American political scene and leave some positive image out here for themselves.
From the above story and the current issues that is causing a racial divide it doesn't look good for Mrs. Hillary Clinton and the Demoncratic Party if she gets the nomination.
This nation is yearning for a leader who will UNITE its people to achieve economic growth,affordable health care,affordable education. It is crying for a leader who will up-lift the spirit of its people from despair. A leader who will restore morality and good judgement to the Oval Office and responsible leadership to nation and the world.
So, this UNITY that America is so desperate for will not be realize if Senator Hillary Clinton and her campaign continue to demean and make insensitive remarks about the other candidates and insist to not apologize to the people of this nation for her vote on the Irag invation.
The Clintons are a powerful political force to reckon with; but if they continue on this path, their political asset will become a liability and this nation will miss an opportunity to unite and heal itself.
Right now, above all else, this nation needs HEALING and UNITY.
When Bill Clinton was president, he managed to keep spending down, economy up and worked towards helping the middle class. With Bush, we have lost the middle class, we now have the poor, the working poor and the incredibly wealthy. There are 45,000,000 people in this country without the ability to have health care (regardless of income,and health issues). We have an education system that is so lame children are graduating high school (not left behind!) unable to read or write in complete sentences. This is unbelievable. Everytime anything is written about the Clintons, it is always snide, sarcastic, or demeaning. I would go back to the Clinton era with gratitude, Monica and all if we could wipe out the disastrous Bush/Cheney years. No one talks of impeachment of an administration that has committed crimes against humanity in the form of imprisonment without a trial, torture (something I always believed we as American abhorred), astronomical national debt, children and the elderly without health care, economic disaster for most of the middle class, foreclosure on people's homes because of illegal mortgage practices. Need I go further. Bill Clinton has a fling and the nation went berserk. Bush has humiliated us across 7 continents and we go (well,lll, he loves God) What the hell?
We need a leader, I defy anyone who says that Hillary is not an intelligent and remarkable woman who can lead and be fair. We all make mistakes, but nothing can compare to the War in Irag for Bush. Can we get out of that? I doubt it. Is Obama ready to clean up after Bush? I don't think so, I think he is remarkable, charismatic and energetic, but he has no experience with other nations, Bill and Hillary can make up for that together. Yes, we do need healing, we do need something different than what we have. We don't need another corporate-loving, eff-the-middle class republican in the white house. We need someone who sees the needs of the poor, gets this country taking care of its own. Loving our people and caring for what happens to us. Once we are back strong and capable, we can then work towards helping other nations get back on track. I feel sorry for the people of Iraq, but that problem existed way before Bush and will continue when we are all dead and buried. Wake up America and stop listening to women-hating, good-ole-boys in the Media that make Hillary look like a robot that has no feelings. The Clintons are idealists that have a lot of feeling for this country and want to see it thrive. They want to get back on track the way it was before Bush has destroyed everything in the 7 years he has been in office. No one can say he didn't make a good showing on 9/11 but he went nuts after that. The no child left behind act has destroyed many children. They will not be able to make up for those lost years. Teachers are suffering, students are suffering and we need to make many changes in the educational system. We need to have teachers teach, not test. We need to have a system that encourages a love of knowledge and learning. To delve, to understand and to create. We are raising barbarians and cretons. Ignorant savages that cannot write, communicate or create. Lets not go back to the basics, lets create new basics and new ways to learn, new ways to teach and new ways to encourage a love of knowledge. The youth of today have quick minds and are easily bored, we need to meet that with new ideas. Teachers licenses should be harder to achieve so we have the best in the classroom. We need to allow the older Americans to get good jobs and maybe teach if they like so that it won't be schools of children teaching children.
Let's stand up and demand the best from our senators, congressman, and president. Demand that they do what we as Americans want, not what the aliens desire, but we Americans come first in this country. The aliens can become Americans but if they don't want to, GO HOME. Stop trying to turn our America into another country. We are proud of what we stand for, Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Justice for ALL. Let's remember those things when we go to the polls. We need to do away with the electoral college. WHO are these people and why do they need to speak for America. We the People, need to stand up and be counted and speak for ourselves. Women are just as viable and just as intelligent and able as any and I repeat, Any MAN. Let's stop this demeaning rhetoric about Hillary and whether or not she's a She-devil, or what she's wearing, or whether she has a perfect body or face without age. She is over 50, she's in great condition, considering she's out there everyday, trying to make her issues known. Lets give these politicians a chance to speak about what is important to them and stop these stupid questions about whether you believe in evolution or what size shoe you wear. For God's Sake, this country is in trouble! Our country is sad and suffering. We want to talk about education, health care, economic conditions and how to help stop global warming. We want to look back and say, A Job Well Done as we turn this country over to the youth of tomorrow instead of OOOOPS Soorrryyy..
I continue to be amused by people worshiping at the altar of Barak because they believe he'll unite Americans. What you people fail to recognize is that it's about the issues. You either believe Iraq was a mistake (and most of you who do now are Monday morning quarterbacking the thing) or you don't. You either believe the government should mandate "universal health care" or not. You either believe the government should should restrict trade or not. You either believe the the rich should pay 80% of the federal tax bill or you think the current 70% is just fine. It's the issues, the empty words of a man or woman who has accomplished nothing.
I think what's funny is that since Bill Clinton made the "fairy tale" comment, Obama still hasn't addressed the issue and still hasn't explained that if he has always said he is against the war, then why did he vote against the withdrawl of troops and for funding the war in 2006? And if someone replies to my comment just to argue please don't give your explanation for his votes. And I know Hillary's voting record on the war, both good and bad and I don't agree with all of her votes. I think the best argument would be if you give an actual quote from Obama to explain his votes. Because I havn't read any. And again, he still has ignored the question.
I just hope the American people are not so easily hoodwinked as to elect another Clinton president. These two epitomize the worst traits of the baby-boomer generation: self-absorbed, irresponsible, and obsessed with the notion that something is owed them just because they're smarter than everyone else. They can't go away fast enough for me.
"I continue to be amused by people worshiping at the altar of Barak because they believe he'll unite Americans. What you people fail to recognize is that it's about the issues. You either believe Iraq was a mistake (and most of you who do now are Monday morning quarterbacking the thing) or you don't. You either believe the government should mandate "universal health care" or not. You either believe the government should should restrict trade or not. You either believe the the rich should pay 80% of the federal tax bill or you think the current 70% is just fine. It's the issues, the empty words of a man or woman who has accomplished nothing."
This shows great ignorance on the issues. If you think it is a simple "yes" or "no" answer, when it comes to issues, you are horribly wrong.
" I think the best argument would be if you give an actual quote from Obama to explain his votes. Because I haven't read any. And again, he still has ignored the question."
"Us rushing headlong into a war unilaterally was a mistake and may still be a mistake...
IF it has happened, then at that point what the debate's really gonna be about is what is our long term commitment is there. How much is is it going to cost, what does it mean for us to rebuild Iraq, how do we stabilize and make sure that this country doesn't splinter into factions between the Shi'as, and the Kurds, and the Sunnis." - Barack Obama
This quote clearly explains his view. Rushing into the war was wrong. HOWEVER, once we were there, we had a responsibility to help rebuild the country, which means funding the war. So Obama was always against the war occurring, but considered it a poor choice to pull funding/pull out directly after we invaded.
After we had gave them time, Barrack supported a phase withdrawal.
This is a totally reasonable, consistent view, and personally one I agree with completely.
Here are some important facts that we are overlooking:
Iraq resolution was adopted by senate on October 11 2002
Obama gave his speech on October 26, 2002
I read the text of Obama’s speech and I do not see a single reference to the senate resolution. If he thought the senate resolution was that important how come he did not say that 15 days after the resolution was passed. It does not make any sense. No body ever asked him the question:
Senator if you thought that the Iraq resolution was that important how come we did not hear from you in your speech 15 days after it was passed?
The above quote starts at second 17 in this clip
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8
"Here are some important facts that we are overlooking:
Iraq resolution was adopted by senate on October 11 2002
Obama gave his speech on October 26, 2002
I read the text of Obama’s speech and I do not see a single reference to the senate resolution. If he thought the senate resolution was that important how come he did not say that 15 days after the resolution was passed. It does not make any sense. No body ever asked him the question:
Senator if you thought that the Iraq resolution was that important how come we did not hear from you in your speech 15 days after it was passed?"
Um, everyone already knew that the senate was/had authorized the war? I don't see how mentioning the resolution would really add anything. He was speaking against the authorization/correctness of the war, so mentioning the senate resolution specifically wouldn't make much difference. It would just say HOW the senate had authorized the war(omg, a resolution? so that's how they do it?).
None of the Democratic candidates can be entrusted with the safety of this nation. Back in 2002, they all ... except for Barak Obama, who was still a state assemblyman in Illinois and who is still dangerously inexperienced and naive in foreign affairs ... agreed that Saddam Hussein was a menace and that he needed to be removed. But when things proved to be tougher in Iraq than expected, instead of getting behind the effort they shamelessly sought partisan political advantage by trying to cut and run as quickly as possible, totally unconcerned with the long-term adverse consequences for the United States that such a defeat at the hands of islamic extremists would have brought. With very few exceptions (like Joe Lieberman, a man of true honor and integrity) they have, at every turn, sought to undermine the brave efforts of our troops in the field. Their behavior over the past four years has been nothing short of utterly disgusting. As a result, I will never vote for a Democrat again.
Rather, I will cast my vote on Super Tuesday for the one candidate who had the courage to buck popular opinion and call for more troops and a change in leadership at the Pentagon when everybody else, even all of the Republican candidates, were looking for a quick way out. He said at the time "I'd rather lose the presidency than see my country lose a war we need to win." That's the kind of backbone and leadership I want in the Oval Office ... not someone who does what's easy or what the latest opinion poll tells him to do, but what he believes to be right. That man is Sen. John McCain, and without him and a very few others like him who stood up against the defeatists, the remarkable progress that we have seen in Iraq over the past year as well as the victory that we are now poised to achieve there would never have been possible.
I may not always agree with Senator McCain on specific issues. But I trust him to be straight with me and to always put the good of the country ahead of party loyalty and ideology.
VOTE McCAIN 2008!!!
Dear josh20950
Yes, Barack Obama gave all teh details of all his votes on the Iraq war and they make a lot of sense. But the media shows only what creates buzzzzz, so you won't find this info in the normal media coverage. Please educate yourself a little deeper, out of the MSM. I truly believe that when you starting going deeper in your research, you will not only find Obama's answer to what you want but also you will see that Obama is the person we need to lead this country. You will feel the urge to bury the Clinton's old politics tricks forever. Not that I think this is the end of Hillary, but I think she may be more useful as senator or maybe as VP.
Best
What is this mysterious Joo-Joo that the Clintons are able to cast on voters? Hillary Potter? Bust off lady, your pant suits and crazy cackle don't phase me!
Boy. Your diatribe screams for a parsing.
"When Bill Clinton was president, he managed to keep spending down, economy up and worked towards helping the middle class."
He kept spending down mostly by gutting the military under the false notion that with the Soviet Union gone, we had no more enemies. He bought Francis Fukuyama's ridiculous assertion that we had reached "The End of History". As far as the economy, aside from staying out of the way, what did he do? He was handed an economy in which the last recession had just ended and the internet was just coming on-line. He presided over a tulip-mania that generated ephemeral corporate tax revenues that allowed a short-term surplus, but inevitably came crashing down. What did Bush inherit? A post-internet bubble apocalypse, followed by 9/11, the planning for which occurred on Clinton's watch. But he was too concerned about getting blow-jobs in the Oval Office to notice.
"With Bush, we have lost the middle class, we now have the poor, the working poor and the incredibly wealthy."
What a bunch of B.S. "Lost the middle class"? Aside from regurgitating Lou Dobb's talking points, what exactly is your evidence for this?
"We have an education system that is so lame children are graduating high school (not left behind!) unable to read or write in complete sentences. This is unbelievable."
I agree. But it's not new. The same thing was going on when Saint Bill was president.
"No one talks of impeachment of an administration that has committed crimes against humanity in the form of imprisonment without a trial"
Get some historical prespective. No one (seriously) talks of impeachment because Bush hasn't come even close to committing an impeachable offense. We've always imprisoned enemy combatants without a trial. That's what happens in wars. Again, it's not new, it's standard practice and always has been. How many thousands of German POWs labored in this country during WWII? Did you even know about that? I'm guessing not. Do you think they all had a trial? Get a grip.
"torture (something I always believed we as American abhorred),"
You realize, of course, that by failing to make a distinction between, say, waterboarding ("torture", American style), and burning someone to death with a propane torch (real torture, Arab style), all you and your ilk have succeeded in doing is rendering the word "torture" meaningless? And are you really so naive that you think that the ends can NEVER justify the means? If torturing one enemy combatant could get information that could save 100 lives, would you do it? What if one of the lives was, say, one of your children? Yes, as a nation, we abhor torture. As humans, we abhor torture. We abhor war too. But sometimes the choice you have to make is between bad and even worse.
"astronomical national debt"
Again, some perspective would be a good thing. First of all, GWB didn't invent national debt. And as a percentage of GDP (which is the only sensible way of looking at it), it is not out of line with history. But maybe if you keep repeating this lie, it will become truth. It worked for Goebels.
"economic disaster for most of the middle class"
Really? I'm middle class, and the Bush years have been a boom for me. How did I escape this "economic disaster" you speak of?
"foreclosure on people's homes because of illegal mortgage practices."
Illegal? Really? What laws were broken? And more importantly, how is this Bush's fault? Isn't it the responsibility of the person signing the forms to know what they're agreeing to? Do you know the difference between "illegal" and "unethical"? And what is unethical of offering and ARM at a teaser rate of 2 percentage points below the fixed rate while disclosing that it is adjustable and will come due in 5 years? And what, exactly, did, say, Countrywide gain by this? Did they make a whole bunch of ill-gotten gains? Or are they about to go belly-up because they made a bunch of bad loans? And again, how, exactly, does GWB figure into all of this?
"Bill Clinton has a fling and the nation went berserk."
No. Bill had several flings, he was accused by at least one woman of out-and-out rape, he perjured himself, he besmirched the dignity of the Oval Office and the most powerful institution in the world, and he looked the American people in the eye and lied to us. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs
Ah, that's enough. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. No challenge whasoever. Liberals never are a challenge, because for liberals there is zero shame in getting caught in a lie. You just shrug and move on to the next lie. No biggie. And Saint Bill created the ethical environment to get away with it. Truth is relative; everyone is entitled to their own version of it. Bah.
<<<< There are 45,000,000 people in this country without the ability to have health care (regardless of income,and health issues.)>>>>>
I love it when Liberals use the number of 45 million people without health care in the US to justify their plan for socialized medicine. The fact that 40% of those 45 million happen to be illegal aliens always seems to get left out.
And not only do they want to give illegals free health care at tax payers expense. They also want give illegals Driver's Licenses why? Could it be that they forced through a Motor Voter program in most states that would enable illegals to register to vote when they got their Driver's License?
A Liberal with a cause is more dangerous than a preacher with bad hair.
Barack can take the high road. Hillary has taken the low road and someone ought to call her on it.
I'm not a big fan of Christopher Hitchens as he is often to acerbic. Here is his review of Hillary which in my view is too weak:
http://www.slate.com/id/2182065/
Come on Chris. There is so much "there" there with the Clintons and this is the best you can do? Look at what you are missing:
1. The blatant hypocrisy in Hillary running as a women's champion when she and Bill would have been relegated to the history books had she not lied, covered up, and apologized for all of Bill's disgusting, illegal behavior in employing the power of the State to abuse countless women. His use of the State troopers in Arkansas for this outrageous purposes was a well-known running joke. And now the liberal women are running around proclaiming Hillary their champion as she tries once again to use her sex to deceive the public into voting the Clintons back into office.
2. What about the fact that after all her double talk on the Iraq war, not only did she deny she made a mistake in following Bush, but she went right ahead and repeated it in voting for his outrageous warmongering bill declaring Iran's military to be terrorists - an act of war. Once again, it turned out there was no credible evidence that our alleged enemy had WMD. And once again, when Bush waved around the threat of nukes, he admittedly knew about the NIE finding that Iran stopped it's nuke development program in 2003 and probably didn't restart it.
3. Hillary keeps talking about how she's a "workhorse" in Congress and not a "showhorse" - but what the heck has this junior senator done? What has she had time to do? She's only been in the Senate two more years than her main opponent and before that never held elected office and yet she says she had superior experience.
4. Hillary trumpets her experience in the White House but won't release her records as First Lady in time for them to be judged in the Primaries. She says she can take any bullet the right has to offer - she is asking us to take a leap of faith that her records as First Lady which she is too afraid to disclose won't hurt her. Uh huh. We all know what happened. After her one big shot at healthcare reform she got relegated to visiting foreign dignitaries, presiding over petty scandals, and trying to cover up for more philandering by her out of control spouse.
5. Maybe the reason she keeps talking about false hopes is her experience. She and Bill raised a whole bunch of hopes back in 1992 only to not be able to fulfill them. No healthcare reform. A sellout on fighting discrimination against gays in the military. A President who lied under oath to try to get himself off the hook in a sordid sexual harassment suit. A President who wasn't aggressive enough in going after al Qaeda. Who abandoned millions in Africa. Who didn't even try to stand up for anyone in his party but himself and his wife.
Anyway, I'd like to see you take another crack at this Chris. Lame efforts like yours could result in another Clinton leg in the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton failure cycle.
Let's go Obama!
Did you forget your prozac today?
I think if the vote was counted right in NH obama would have been the winner. Hillary is wooing the hipanic vote, does this mean the illegals will vote??Sandy Berger destroyed documents under "someones" order, I believe they were warnings to Clinton of 9/11, Berger went off the radar for a while, now with the assumption Hillary will be president he's waiting for a postion closeby????? She claims she has experience, yes, she interned in Ca in her earlier days with a member of the communist party I have read, as a law student sat in court with Black panthers in case there were civil rights questions or an appeal was needed, she put herself in connection with the CHIPS program, she had nothing to do with it, she failed the bar exam in DC, only way she got into prestigous law firm was bill and was a payback for supporting Carter, upon reading all this I believe this supports who she is now. Experience in being less than honest, I cannot see her dealing with foreign leaders, she will raise taxes, make all illegals citizens, open the door for all terroism in US. I think the only reason Bill is her "whipping boy" out there rooting for her is it's payback time for him due to the Lewinsky affair. Bill lied about his sex with lewinsky on nation wide tv, when he should have been getting Binladen he was getting his jollies in the oval office. The Clintons should move on, they are not to be trusted, when you hear hillary speak and watch her you know she is not sincere only about her self serving ways and power for her. The Clintons remind me of the old "snake salesman" pay a high price but don't expect to get the real thing. The Clintons are the worst thing that could happen to be back in the whitehouse. Didn't she steal from the whitehouse when she left? If so she stole from the americn people just like she is trying to do now.
So enlighten me. If it's not a simple yes or no answer on those issues, how do you "solve" an issue? How do you get things done. You call me ignorant without any follow up and that's pretty much the source of my amusement. It shows the difference between people who lead and people who talk.
Hillary is a great politician but even she can't spin the facts. She made a bad call and she has to own up to it. Not even the great Clinton machine is perfect.
Obama's response:
"It is a little frustrating for ...the former president to continually repeat this notion that somehow I didn't know where I stood in 2004 about the war. He keeps on giving half the quote. I was always against the war.
"The quote he keeps on feeding back was an interview on Meet the Press at the National Convention when Tim (Russert) was asking, `Given your firm opposition to the war, what do you make of the fact that your nominee for president and vice president didn't have that same foresight.'
"And obviously I didn't want to criticize them on the eve of their nomination. So I said, `Well, I don't know what -- you know, I wasn't in the Senate. I can't say for certain what I would have done if I was there. I know that from where I stood the case was not made.' He always leaves that out.
"And you know, I understand why he's frustrated. But at some point since we've corrected him repeatedly on this and he keeps on repeating it, you know it tells me that he's just more interested in trying to muddy the waters than actually talk fairly about my record."
Then this morning on NPR he said he didn't want to leave troops in action without the proper resources to come home alive. I don't know if that's an oversimplification or not--it may be. But the response above is accurate and you need only look for the Tim Russert clip to find the full context. You've been reading the wrong things. He's responded several times, it's just that the Clintons (and Bill especially) get more press.
NEO-LIB PUPPET HILLARY’S UNIQUE EXPERIENCE ---
Whitewater, Cattle Futuregate, Travelgate, Gennifer Flowersgate, Filegate, Vince Fostergate, Whitewater Billing Recordsgate, Paula Jonesgate, Federal Building Campaign Phone Callgate, Lincoln Bedroomgate, Donations from Convicted Drug and Weapons Dealersgate, Buddhist Templegate, Lippogate, Chinagate, Lewinsky Affair, Perjury and Jobs for Lewinskygate, Willeygate, Web Hubbel Prison Phone Callgate, Selling Military Technology to the Chinesegate, Wag the Doggate, Juanita Broaddrickgate, Vandalgate, Lootergate, Pardongate.---
Israel for military protection, China for military secrets, and Mexico for amnesty most desperately need Hillary for president.
---Google: “boycott liberalism Clinton Legacy”; “Danneymeyer deaths linked to President Clinton”; “Hsu Hillary”; “Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; Stricherz “Why the Democrats are Blue”; “Who Would the World Elect”.
HILLARY LOVES YOU
Neo-Lib Hillary is most desperately needed for president by the entrenched horde of Mexican aliens demanding amnesty, Mexico for the vast revenue sent home by these aliens; Israel to maintain the un-constitutional sacrificial flow of American wealth and blood, China to steal military secrets, prescription drug and weapons lobbies for huge government deals, sacrificial killers of children for government supported abortions, professional freeloaders for all of life’s necessities, and Bill for Bill.
But are the American People now wanting to substitute Neo-Con corruption and moderate taxes, for Neo-Lib corruption and very high taxes? Or, are the American People now wanting to end the ongoing government tyranny, by justly condemning every government Neo-Con and Neo-Lib to the revolutionary firing squad; to restore the Constitutional Liberty of the Reagan Conservative Republicans and Kennedy Liberal Democrats?
The entire World has been keenly following the American Cultural War, long awaiting the Dawn of an American Reformation and the beginning of the end of the Era of the Ugly Neo-Con and Neo-Lib military interventionist policies. How is it that the entire World is now cheering for a conservative Libertarian Reagan Republican and a liberal Kennedy Democrat?
Google: Mearsheimer Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy; Stricherz Why the Democrats are Blue; Mark Penn Hillary; and, Who Would the World Elect.
I just want to put on my Spanx and ride Hillary around the living room like a show pony. "Go, show pony, go! Giddy-yep!"
I do not believe I am the only American who feels this way.
I read some news stories online the last couple of days with quotes where Obama did respond to the "fairy tale" thing. He said that what he claims about his consistent Iraq stance (since before the war and up to now) can be proven, while no one has been able to find anything in writing to show that Hillary ever spoke out against the war until it became a campaign issue. Obama said he voted for funding because after the war has already begun, then we have to support the troops so they can do the best job. This is true. How would anyone like it if their relative was in the military in Iraq and the Congress would not vote for the money to feed him/her or maybe write his/her paycheck? Once in the war, you have to figure out a suitable way to end it. Starving the troops to death is not an option. Imagine how the world would react if Congress refused to support the troops. Before the war started, a lot of the USA public was gungho for stamping out anything that smelled like terrorism. But when there are casualties and the war bills have to be paid, then reality begins to sink in. Obama stood against public opinion at the time when he said no to the war before it started. He was standing for what he thought was best for the country in the long run, rather than what was best for him politically at that time.
I used to think more women in the political arena would have a
positive effect on our country. It seems I was mistaken in the
case of Hillary Clinton. She seems to have disappeared behind
that ever changing smokescreen referred to as 'posturing'.
So I'll be very happy to pledge my support for the only
candidate who echoes my sentiments that it is fundamentally
wrong to invade, defile and obliterate innocent people by the
hundreds of thousands. He also knows where the 'table' is
and what this country stands for. And yes, he was right the
first time. He voted no to compromising our values and liberties. He stands alone and desperately needs our support
now. There are those who are trying to silence him. Let us hope for our sake they do not succeed.
But of course you must know who I'm speaking of
DENNIS KUCINICH
TRUST IN HILLARY’S MORAL DEPRAVITY
When did her Christian God give her the right to support mothers sacrificial killing their own children by abortion?
When did her American Constitution give her the right to support the sacrifice American wealth and blood, on behalf of domestic and foreign lobbies?
If she dishonors her Christian God and her sacred Constitution, how can she be trusted to ever honor her promises to the American People?
Is her impending doom the work of that “Vast Right Wing Conspiracy”, or is her own blooming moral depravity?
Google References: Mark Penn Hillary; Hsu Hillary; Mearsheimer “Israeli Lobby and US Foreign Policy”; and, Stricherz “Why the Democrats are Blue”
http://www.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/01/13/comparing_iraq_records.p...
perhaps this will be useful.
I who have a HQ in VA, am a avid political junkie, and disabled, so I'm like a blogger.
I have been so ddep into the elections, I watch like a man watches sports, (basketball)
Whenever there is a competition going on, I like to see responses and stuff.
Well I've been following the election since the candidates announced. I especially eagerly awaited the primary since, I chose to support Obama back when he announce in February 07.
In IOWA, the first racial "code as I'm told by wh republ and independents, for kid is Boy. A slur on African American men still used by racist sects here in America. Well, Donna Brazille told Bill he better shut his mouth on CNN. I'm not sure if this gave them hint into AA phychi, but Bill went stumping some more using the fantasy and kid rally's to boost Hillary.
Anyway, I guess the IOWA voters who caucused didn't like where this was going and didn't support what slick Willy was doing. The polls started rapidly gaining for Obama after a speech before caucus. 41%- 31%. The Kucinich supporters were saying if "K" didn't get the 15%, they would caucus for 2nd choice for Obama. Obama and Edwards weren't surprised because they had established Clinton as the STATUS Quo candidate, and asked whether you can put the same old washington bureacrats in and expect the changes America wants. Edwards and Clinton battled for second, and Hillary put out that Obama was weak on abortion rights. The same one she was running in NH. She lost and went all ballistic then. In a 945 White State, Obama had beaten her and she couldn't except that he won. Bill and Hill really started with the cocaine on MSNBC, Billy Sheehan interview, insinuating to Chris Mathews, that Obama was a Crack or cocaine dealer.
Then this was forwarded to NV through the Obama IOWA and NH supporters who chatted with the other supporters nationwide about what was going on. So Clinton knew the Hispanics didn't know and tried to pit them against blacks by having a surrogate on CNN say that AA and Latinoos, dont vote for each other. when the union endorsed Obama, she lost it again and her campaing supporters filed a lawsuit to stop culinary workers from caucusing. The judge struck it down and allowed the workers to caucus..
The Clintonistas went around where ever Obama signs were and told non-english speaking caucus goers that the site was only for Clinton and turned Obama supporters away and even shut the doors and threatened to call the police. There were well over 300 calls on violations and she narrowly escaped the thumping she sorely deserved. She is playing the country out into thinking she is getting support honestly running on issues not the divisive tactics her and Bill have been doubleteaming Obama on. When Hill had Bill, Obama got Oprah and they've been pissed eversince. My right hand to God.