Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
LATEST: Obama blames Clinton, Biden, Kerry, Edwards and others for letting Bin Laden escape!
According to the latest official press release from Obama, Bill Burton says:
<i>When Senator Clinton voted with President Bush to authorize the war in Iraq, she made a tragically bad decision that diverted our military from the terrorists who attacked us, and allowed Osama bin Laden to escape and regenerate his terrorist network.<i>
Right. Hillary Clinton, like Joe Biden, voted for the Authorization after Bush promised Congress that he'd fully exhaust all diplomatic solutions. It was supposed to be the stick to go with the diplomatic carrot forcing Saddam to give inspectors unfettered access. Read her speech here: http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
Whether or not you agree with this, Obama's going far too far in laying the blame for Obama's escape at Hillary's feet. Listening to him sometimes, you'd think that Hillary's been President for the last 8 years. Of course, if she had been, America would probably have Universal health care and a vastly improved reputation around the world. Ahh well.
Comments (141)
Of course neither she nor Biden are directly responsible for this, but they did aid and abet Bush, no?
April 21, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting. You really believe the Senators who voted in favor of the AUMF, aided and abetted Bush in occupying Iraq, don't you? I believe there is no lying in you, Ben. But I just don't see it that way.
April 21, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, I do. Do you think Bush would've invaded Iraq without the AUMF?
I can't say I'm 100% sure that he wouldn't have, I won't deny it. But, I think it would have at least been less likely.
April 21, 2008 4:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
He may not have invaded without the support of the American people. 85% of us favored giving him the AUMF. If only 15% of us had favored it, he might have just bombed them. Then again, the Congress and the American people don't seem to be able to get him out of Iraq. So he might have gone in anyway. I'm one of those who separates the invasion from the occupation. I'm glad we invaded. I wish we had left right after we captured Saddam Hussein. I know that's not a popular view here.
April 21, 2008 8:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're glad we invaded? So you don't mind all the innocent civilians who were killed in our shock and awe? Let the country go to hell as long as we kill the dictator? You want us to do the same with Iran and Ahmanidijad?
April 21, 2008 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't mind all of the Shiites, Kurds and Iranians who were killed by Hussein? Isn't the world a little more complicated than you'd like it to be? You're looking for black and white, good and evil, simple ideas for simple minds. All Hussein had to do was say he'd destroyed his weapons and let the UN inspectors confirm it. If you pretend to have a gun and the cops shoot you, and in shooting you, they kill an innocent child standing behind you, are the cops guilty of the child's death, or are you?
April 21, 2008 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you not the one simplifying it? You want to make it a question whether Saddam was bad, but this is not at issue. Rather than advocate an asassination you were glad we invaded and said nothing of horrors that would follow only that we should pull out once we got him. It was not a child standing behind Saddam when we decided to shoot a bullet, but a whole school of children and our weapon was a cluster bomb.
April 21, 2008 11:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mind many acts of destruction. I mind Darfur, I mind Angola, I mind Columbia, I mind El Salvador... there's a lot of ethnic cleansing and peety despots running around committing crimes against humanity.
Does that mean the US has a military obligation to invade, occupy, and depose their sovereign leadership because our sensibilities are offended? I seem to remember international law disputing that concept. There are diplomatic solutions, and this takes time... but to authorize military force because you don't like how a sovereign nation treats its citizens is laughable given the United States' history of regime support... INCLUDING SADDAM HUSSEIN.
April 22, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
You don't mind all of the Shiites, Kurds and Iranians who were killed by Hussein?
You're actually defending the Iraq war now? Pretty pathetic. And it just shows how Hillary supporters favor their candidate more then any real-world outcome.
April 22, 2008 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an idiot... and elitist armchair general who thinks it's kewl that we gave Bush permission to invade Iraq without any mission specifications. Congress gave Bush a blanket force authorization, you nimrod. They could have amended the AUMF and narrowed the scope of force, but they didn't. No matter what fanboy delusions you harbor about the right and correct military mission, the truth is that everyone knew full well that invasion meant occupation.
April 22, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
In 2007 Edwards, Biden, Dodd all admitted that their vote for the Bush proposed Iraq Resolution that gave US authorization to use millitary force against Iraq in 2002 was wrong.
Hillary feels that she was right on her vote by saying "If I knew then what I know now I would have never voted for this war"
Therfore blame goes squarely on Clinton who doesn't regret her vote that has killed over 4,000 US soldiers.
She's ready to take America to our next battle Iran, and any middle east nation that threatends Israel.
Hillary's Presidency
War on Iran 2009
War on Palestine 2010
War on Pakistan 2011
:{
April 22, 2008 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh? In Aug 2007 Clinton said:
"Well, I, too, regret giving George Bush the authority that he misused and abused"
April 22, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
So she sees his error but fails to see hers.
April 22, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bush was the error. Giving him the authority, as she points out, was the error on her part. The premise behind the Authorisation was not an error. Giving the Authorisation to Bush, as she says, was the error.
With Powell on the team, Hillary, me and 75% of Americans did not think that Bush was the warmongerer he turned out to be.
April 22, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
blame for iraq lies squarely at the feet of anyone who looked George W. Bush square in the eye and thought, here is a man who in whom complete faith might be placed, as is commensurate to the abdication of responsibility hillary implies.
if ever there were a man who needed a leash, its bush. and if there were ever a woman who should have known it, its hillary. honestly i think it is an insult to her intelligence to take her wide-eyed declarations of violated trust in the Codpiece at face value.
i think she took a cold hard look at the likely outcomes and decided that a vote in favor of the AUMF and the inevitable war would probably not stop her from making a white house run in 08 no matter how badly it went, whereas a vote against would invoke both an immediate short-term political penalty for going against the zeitgeist and a possible long-term penalty should the war go to plan.
to her credit, i can believe to some extent that she did not believe bush would fuck it up quite so badly as he did but i am certain that she weighed up the potential for adverse outcomes such as all those which have materialised thoroughly.
on political scales, not moral.
and that will be her (rightful) downfall. if she had taken a stand for what was right, maybe she couldn't have parlayed her way into this run.
April 22, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does not matter.
Their hero can do nothing wrong.
Lets hope the supers give Clinton the nomination because mcwar will run him over.
Nothing will change except the riots on food and gas will hit here and the progressives will be to blame.
April 21, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill Clinton isn't running. Check your clerical errors, or psyche.
April 21, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too bad neither the polls nor common sense back your claims, as usual.
April 21, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotalife -
I admit, voting Obama as President at this moment in time has risk.
Obama has a huge job in front of him: Fixing the economy, Combating terrorists, and saving the planet.
If he fails, we all fail.
But if he succeeds, we all succeed.
April 22, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
i swear to christ i see gotalife dissing obama constantly but he never explains what magic formulas clinton has concocted to deal with the myriad of cataclysmic disasters that will necessarily destroy obama like a mcgovern-stinkbug. what is she, a teflon coated android? is she the Terminator? can we simply ignore attacks directed upon her that would prove the downfall of any mere mortal?
TERMINATOR 08!
April 22, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
But don't you understand? Hillary is what's wrong with politics! The only way for these politicans to atone for their past mistakes is to latch themselves onto the Obama star. Then, the chosen son will extend them all, and us, forgiveness for our sins.
Or something.
April 21, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like it! Although the Jesus metaphor might be a bit over-the-top, it is an excellent way for them to atone. ;)
Help get the person elected who will enable us to undo the mistakes we (as a nation) contributed to by allowing Bush to do what he's done. Naturally, some deserve more blame for helping Bush than others.
April 21, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
They did contribute to bin Laden escaping. What Kerry and Edwards did was say they were wrong about the vote.
Hillary did not. Continued to lie about what that vote meant. Her foreign advisors are full of neocons who think the war was a good idea, just handled badly. Another reason Obama is a better counter to McCain on foreign policy. Hillary and McCain are damn near identical.
I'm sure if Edwards had gotten farther in the race, his foreign policy team would not look like Hillary's.
And ain't it interesting: Hillary gets to say horrendous things about Obama with impunity. He nails her vote on Iraq -- which is a big "duh" -- and the assocations fly and tar Obama. He's not supposed to say anything about her at all.
Oh, I forgot. We can't pick on her because she's a girl.
That disgusts me. And I'm 57 years old, a white female and a feminist. Hillary disgusts me.
April 21, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Spare us.
We know. You say it every time you post, 57andFemale.
April 21, 2008 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. And I came back from the future to protect Hillary Clinton and defend the Democratic Party!
April 21, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Simple question, was the authorization a mistake or not?
April 21, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
No.
April 21, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why are you here blogging, instead of there, sticking up for what you believe in?
Other priorities? Like Cheney?
April 21, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sticking up for sticking together.
April 21, 2008 8:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you admit you lack the courage of your convictions, especially where physical danger to your person is involved. But you'll happily send others to be at risk for your position.
You are therefore a coward.
April 21, 2008 10:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
How do you feel about senators not reading the NIE before voting yes?
April 21, 2008 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for it. When did you start believing the NIE?
April 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, we should call them the Conguess rather than the Congress. Rather than seek to understand a critical situation with as much information as possible, especially one of the few from an impartial source they should just stick their finger in the air and guess.
April 21, 2008 8:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Was the answer to when you started believing the NIE hidden somewhere in your comment? I can't find it.
April 21, 2008 10:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was just below your answer on Iran ;o)
April 21, 2008 11:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then you have no credibility.
Congress should not have given anyone, let alone a man like Bush, a blanket use of force authorization without any strategic stipulations. Congress abrogated its responsibility to the President and further weakened the Constitutional seperation of powers.
I repeat: you have no credibility.
April 22, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you've unwittingly hit the nail on the head there. I think we can mostly agree invading Iraq was a mistake, but waging war is very different to authorising it. I believe that in principle, and as a diplomatic tool, the authorisation was not a mistake. How it was used by George W Bush was the mistake; a mistake that America ratified in 2004. When judging someone running for President, I look at policy, and try to gauge how they would have acted in certain key situations. With Obama, there's the "at least he didn't do the wrong thing" defence on Iraq. With Hillary, when she voted for authorisation, she laid out in her speech exactly what she would do, were she President. And i think the steps she laid out were exactly right. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
April 21, 2008 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Meant to add in there: The part where you hit the nail on the head, is in saying "Simple question".
If you genuinely believe it's a simple question with a simple answer, then you either haven't properly thought through this issue, or there's no hope of rational discourse with you.
April 21, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems like Billy hasn't thought it all the way through, or there's no hope of rational discourse with him, then. After all, the question was fairly simple, and Billy did provide a simple answer. ;)
Of course, I note that the original poser of the question didn't say the answer was necessarily simple. (Just to be clear, I'm being snarky. I do know such a thing was implied.)
April 21, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hehe - the reason it really annoys me, is that demanding yes/no answers to complex questions represents exactly the kind of sloppy, dogmatic thinking that you get oozing out of Bill O'Reilly and friends. I thought us liberal elites were supposed to know better?
On a slightly different note, quite a few people here seem to put Edwards and Kerry in a different category 'cause they apologised for their votes once things went awry. I think apologising is actually the easy way out, and lowers my opinion of them. Takes more guts to be intellectually honest, and attempt to explain to the raging mob that it wasn't the logic that led to your vote that was flawed, but rather the lies that Bush et al. told beforehand, and the way they used your vote afterwards. I keep harping on on this, but if you haven't read Hillary's War speech, please do. It's exactly the way I'd have wanted the President at the time to think. http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783
April 21, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand that, and as humans (rather than politicians) talking to each other, I think allowing for the complexities is fine. The reason that people go for the simple question/answer format is because pretty much all politicians (including Obama and Clinton), will at some point evade a question by making it more complex than it really is, or if not to evade the question, then to just insert a talking point that they really wanted to inject somewhere in the debate. That annoys me even more.
April 21, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can handle nuance and complexity just fine. But, on the question of whether the authorization was or was not a mistake it's pretty clear in my view that it was. You can qualify it however you like, but the truth is that many Democrats were afraid to hit the pause button until we could better assess the situation before putting our soldiers in harms way and to keep focus on the mission in Afghanistan. If they had read the NIE maybe they would have voted no. If they were not afraid to be labelled as weak on defense and security maybe we wouldn't be in this mess.
April 21, 2008 7:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden read the NIE, and he still voted yes. Hillary and others were briefed multiple times on it, and the multitude of other intelligence sources, which we *now* know to be flawed.
April 22, 2008 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Did Hillary fail than to take into account the fact that she was not president and would not make the decision whether to go into Iraq or not? Was not reading the NIE a mistake?
April 21, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stupid argument. Congress can authorize strategic stipulations, such as what happened in the first Gulf War.
Congress should NEVER authorize a blanket use of force for a President... especially on a sovereign nation that did not attack us or our interests.
You cheerleaders are displaying an uncanny knack for supporting a unitary executive philosophy. I would reccomend you look before you leap.
April 22, 2008 2:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. It is their fault. It's Bush and Cheneys and Rumsfelds, first and foremost, but also the senators that enabled them. Someone could have stood up--someone with a lot of visibility and credibility--and tried to change the narrative, but all chose to protect their political skin instead and as a result bin Laden is still out there and Al Qaeda has been allowed to regroup.
And I do not believe any of those people were so naive as to think Bush wanted diplomacy. I give them far more credit than that.
April 21, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not even most of the Democrats voted for it, let alone all. In the House, 126/127 Democrats voted against it, compared to 81 who voted for it. In the Senate, however, a majority of Democrats did support it, with 21/22 voting against it, compared to 29 who voted for it. (The "extra" 1 in those statistics are from Democratic-leaning independents, Sanders and Jeffords, respectively.)
There were also speeches on the House and Senate floors condemning it prior to its passage. So, some did stand up. Just not enough. :(
April 21, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I meant all of the above list. I know. Paul Wellstone was my senator.
April 21, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry. Didn't mean to sound as condescending as I no doubt did. I know you're a smart person, as you've demonstrated many times in the past. I should've assumed you knew this already.
April 21, 2008 3:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm recommending this, by the way, not because I agree with the statements but because it's a useful conversation.
April 21, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ditto.
April 21, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
She brought up bin Laden, not him. I'm much more concerned with her saying he can't protect us from terrorists than him pointing out her hand in authorizing the Iraq war.
April 21, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am also concerned about her baseless asertion that he cannot protect us from terrorists. She should be ashamed
April 21, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Concerned? Careful how you use that word.
April 21, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The same terrorist organization that struck the twin towers on 9/11/01, had truck bombed them in 1993 when the great "Two for the price of One" Clintons were running the country.
That same terrorist organization went on to bomb American Embassy after Embassy, and the US Cole, while the Great Clintons were in charge. That same terrorist organization was left intact by the Clintons, and therefore were capable of bringing down the Twin Towers on 9/11/01 because The Clintons did not take effective action to destroy those Terrorists.
Ready from day one, my Arse. Hillary Turdblossom Clinton is lying her arse off, as is her custom.
April 21, 2008 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you live in England?
April 21, 2008 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
more distraction!!!!!!
Please people, stay focused!!!!
April 21, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any body who voted for the AUMF is partly responsible. Which is why Obama was against the war to begin with, because he knew it was a misguided boondoggle that wouldnt make us safer and wouldn't stop OBL or Al Qaeda.
April 21, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh- and Biden, kerry, and edwards have all apologized for their vote. Hillary Clinton has not which makes me think she still believes it was the right vote even though the war has been an unmitigated disaster.
April 21, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
THIS
It's Hillary's Bush-esque stubborness on this issue that should be worrying to any rational person.
April 21, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
A jackazz must have posted this.
April 21, 2008 3:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Say what you will about Foreigner's judgment in supporting Clinton, but he's no jackazz. Besides, I thought, considering the Democratic mascot, that being called a jackass would be a compliment!
April 21, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought the soy man was talking about himself.
April 21, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Awww shucks. Cheers Ben, and right back atcha ;-)
April 21, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that Obama or Osama? You may want to fix your spelling.
April 21, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're right! And he accuses Obama of going too far! ;)
April 21, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too late, the painful typo is permanent here---no edit function for posters.
April 21, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is that Candice or BlandBitch? Correct your spelling.
April 21, 2008 3:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
My apologies. I thought you were being smart. I retract my last comment (if I could).
April 21, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why are you being so harsh? She's pointing out an actual mistake that was made in the original post. Foreigner said, "Obama's going far too far in laying the blame for Obama's escape at Hillary's feet."
April 21, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for sticking up for me there.:-) I should have copied the part I was referring to.
And gawlee BionicSoy Man. I think you need a TPM cookie. "Is that Candice or BlandBitch? Correct your spelling." That was actually hurtful and very uncalled for. But, I do appreciate your apologies. Wow...BlandBitch?? Really?
April 21, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
He only gets cocky when he's not face-to-face with ReallyNauseatingAndScaryBitch. Then his yarbles crawl up deep inside.
April 22, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oooh - gees, you're right, sorry! I'd been very cynical when CNN etc made that 'mistake', and go and do it myself. Might stick to Barack in future just to be safe!
April 21, 2008 4:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the kind of hardball Clinton thinks Obama should be able to handle. I'm not very sympathetic.
She can point to facts like Tora Bora happening in December 2001, long before the AUMF.
Good luck with it, Hillary.
April 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. Obama, not even in the Senate yet, made one easy, no-consequence speech to an anti-war crowd in Chicago, and has run his campaign on that speech. But since being elected to the Senate Obama has voted the same as Hillary on every single issue involving the war. I really think Obama and his supporters have over-played Mr. Obama's speech. Maybe that's why of late he's switched to talking about raising the level of politics. (Not being able to deal with tough questions at the last debate probably helped too.)
April 21, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give me one of the bills where you think Obama should've voted differently than Clinton, and then let's compare that vote with how some of the other 21 Democratic Senators who did vote against the war voted on that same issue.
I honestly don't know how such a comparison will look for Obama. So, give me a bill you have in mind there, and let's take a look, shall we?
April 21, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's actually a good idea, but a ittle short on time myself. Have a feeling Kucinich voted against funding...
April 21, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're probably right about Kucinich, but he's not one of the 21. (He's in the House and not the Senate.) Rather than be so literal, however, I'm sure you'd find that some of the 21 voted against funding, but I suspect some voted for it. I honestly don't know if "some" is 3 or 18 of the 21, though.
I like Kucinich, but he's just not politically pragmatic enough to be president. I.e, I think he might be a little too honest for his own political good. (And yes, I'm implicitly acknowledging something somewhat unsavory about Obama. I think he's the most honest of the lot, but he's still a very successful politician.)
April 21, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
See Dixie chicks!
April 21, 2008 3:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
(see Dixie chicks was for otto's post about just a speech rhetoric) not Ben.
April 21, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally liked it better when Foreigner was responsible for a series of pop hits in the late 70s and early 80s, like :Jukebox Hero." Let me explain why:
Unforunately, contrary to Foreigner's suggestion above, this Clinton campaign doesn't Feel Like the First Time. While Bill was a warm empath -- Hot Blooded, if you will -- the new candidate Clinton is Cold As Ice.
While they may balance this by offering a co-Presidency, Americans don't want that kind of Double Vision. While archfeminists may say of HRC that they have been Waiting For a Girl Like You, most of us do not want a female candidate so Urgent[ly] as to vote for this deeply flawed one. After several months of her campaign's Head Games, including negative attacks on Obama (ironically including Foreigner above conflating Obama with Osama), the Democratic Part is indeed a Long Long Way From Home.
So I cannot join you in lifting up Foreigner to the top of the charts today by recommending its political commentary. But what do I know, I'm just a Dirty White Boy . . .
April 21, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's just a little too awesome. You're not a real person, are you?
April 21, 2008 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
More real than that disturbing fusion of your head and the Allsburg baby. If you haven't had a chance to check out my last snark, I am shamelessly hyping it in this thread:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/articleman/
April 21, 2008 3:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Again, you fail the Turing Test, albeit in the opposite direction from most such failures. Admit it, you're not human.
April 21, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel like Nomad, in early-years Star Trek.
The basic paradox in which I am trapped (denying my machine nature apparently proves it) is making by Obama-facade melt.
You have outwitted the machine again with your simple paradox, Captain Kirk.
April 21, 2008 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just stay away from Earth, that's all I ask.
April 21, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Virtuosity indeed. Wow.
April 21, 2008 9:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bin Laden is hoping that the Clintons are returned to the White House.
He has fond memories of how he bombed the Twin Towers in 1993, and for the following Seven Years he had a free hand in Bombing many American Embassies, and even an American Warship, while Bimbo Bill just played hide the cigar, and Hillary played hide the FBI files.
Bin Laden knows that eight years of President Hillary would be just as great for him as the last seven years of President Bill.
April 21, 2008 3:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, that cigar reference is below the belt.
April 21, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I keep forgetting how square you guys are.
April 21, 2008 4:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
We're square, with short hair, and we're proud!
(Or something like that.)
April 21, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's some pretty weird republican framing you're using there. are you an obama supporter or a mccain supporter?
so, bill clinton is in office for little over a month (i know, i know, ready on day one...), and the 1993 wtc bombing is all "the clinton's" fault?
poppy bush doesn't get any of your love? how about saint reagan, who, despite warnings from gorby continued to pump money into islamic extremist groups in afghanistan, leading to bin laden's rise?
i am actually no clinton supporter, and my past posts will bear that out. but i don't think hillary gets the blame for any of her husband's action (or inaction) with respect to al qaeda. that's a completely specious argument. i actually worry that she would be considerably more hawkish than her husband was.
April 22, 2008 11:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Clinton, like Joe Biden, voted for the Authorization after Bush promised Congress that he'd fully exhaust all diplomatic solutions.
Anyone who blindly trusted Bush to keep his word and voted to authorize him to use military force in Iraq has such atrociously poor judgment that they should be automatically disqualified from being President.
If in addition they have trouble remembering whether they ducked and ran to armored vehicles to avoid sniper fire, or strolled across the tarmac to accept a give of flowers from an eight-year-old girl, they should be automatically disqualified from being President.
April 21, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of the people you named in the headline of your post only one has failed to admit that the vote was an error. Sen Clinton cannot even now admit the error of her ways. Her statements at the time trying to parse her vote are of zero value. It was a vote for war and we knew what Bush was going to do. If you do not rember go to the library and look up the headlines for you local paper the day after the vote. She was either voting to go to war or she was duped by W. Either would make her unfit to be president.
April 21, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the debate before last, Clinton clearly said she regretted the vote.
April 21, 2008 3:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually she's admitted it several times. Here's from a debate back in Aug 2007: