Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Joseph C. Wilson : Obama's hollow "judgment" and empty record

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Karmadillo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:20 PM
Original message
Joseph C. Wilson : Obama's hollow "judgment" and empty record
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson

Barack Obama argues that he deserves the Democratic nomination and Hillary Clinton doesn't because he possesses superior "judgment," as he calls it, on the key issues we face as a nation. As definitive proof he offers one speech he made in 2002 during a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable. When he made that speech, Obama was not privy to the briefings by, among others, Secretary of State Colin Powell, in support of the Authorization of Use of Military Force as a diplomatic tool to push the international community to impose intrusive inspections on Saddam Hussein.

Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution? During the 2002-2003 timeframe, he was a minor local official uninvolved in the national debate on the war so we can only judge from his own statements prior to the 2008 campaign. Obama repeated these points in a whole host of interviews prior to announcing his candidacy. On July 27, 2004, he told the Chicago Tribune on Iraq: "There's not much of a difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage." In his book, The Audacity of Hope, published in 2006, he wrote, "...on the merits I didn't consider the case against war to be cut-and- dried." And, in 2006, he clearly said, "I'm always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn't have the benefit of US intelligence. And for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices."

I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war and I profoundly resent Obama's distortion of George Bush's folly into Hillary Clinton's responsibility. I was in the middle of the debate in Washington. Obama wasn't there. I remember what was said and done. In fact, the administration lied in order to secure support for its war of choice, including cooking the intelligence and misleading Congress about the intent of the authorization. Senator Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice.

There is no credible reason to conclude that Obama would have acted any differently in voting for the authorization had he been in the Senate at that time. Indeed, he has said as much. The supposed intuitive judgment he exercised in his 2002 speech was nothing more than the pander of a local election campaign, just as his current assertions of superior judgment and scurrilous attacks on Hillary Clinton are a pander to those who now retroactively think the war was a mistake without bothering to acknowledge Senator Clinton's actual position at the time and instead fantasizing that she was nothing but a Bush clone. Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
grantcart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. I guess when your candidate doesn't have anything to offer we just
keep re running the same old threads
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kahuna Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yep. It's really knida pathetic. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kikosexy2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #2
159. You all sound ...
anti-Joe Wilson all of a sudden...because he's pointing out Obama's short-comings...because he doesn't follow Oprah(is God)?...hmmm?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Yeah I have soon a lot of Obama MT suit threats--but more anti-hillary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
49. Wilson is becoming a bit of a broken record.
Nothing new in this op-ed beyond what he said in December.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:57 PM
Response to Reply #49
59. The line "yes you can" is a really broken record.
Do you object to that particluar broken record too?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #59
73. Really? Who says that?
Are you referring to the Clinton camp's weak-ass lifting of Obama's "Yes.We.Can!" mantra? If so, then yes, that's a broken, shoplifted record.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlertLurker Donating Member (877 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #73
133. Waaaaah! Obama stole it first!
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 12:49 PM by AlertLurker
It doesn't make Hillary lifting it right, but Obama is EASILY as big a thief as Clinton is, and has no right to the moral high ground. Even Kucinich acknowledges lifting it from Cesar Chavez! The slogan, itself, is CERTAINLY not the ONLY thing Obama stole from Kucinich this cycle - not the tone of the rhetoric:

Democrats, Democrats can move this country forward from a condition where of 8 million people out of work to a fullemployment economy with a living wage for all. If you believe our party can do that, let us tell this nation yes we can. (scattered response "Yes we can.").

Democrats can move this country forward from 40 million people without health insurance to a single payer system which provides quality health care for all. Do you believe we can do that? (Response - Yes we can).

Yes we can. Si se puede.

Democrats can move this country forward from underfunded schools, underpaid teachers, and undereducated youths to making education our top funding priority and providing free college education for all. Do you believe we can do that?

Yes we can. Si se puede.

Democrats can move this country forward from a condition where our air, our water and our land is now being ruined by multinational corporate interests; where we can demonstrate that environmental protection is our path to sustaining the life of the planet. Do you believe we can do this as a party? (Response - Yes we can).

Yes we can. Si se puede.


http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/dnc0203/kucin022203spt....
Dennis J. Kucinich
Democratic National Committee Winter Meeting
Washington, DC
February 22, 2003
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #73
145. I do; after the second chant of it. Boring. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sallyseven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #73
162. Obama got "yes we can": from Deval Patrick.
I worked on Deval"s campaign from day one. He stole a lot of his words. I just hope 1 year from now that your not all going bat shit crazy with that empty suit character. We need substance not a rendition of "Pat Robinson" gospel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
aquart Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:25 AM
Response to Reply #59
99. Mindless rote repetition helps many learn their lessons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #99
146. lol n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hieronymus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:56 PM
Response to Reply #49
69. I was very supportive of Amb. Wilson and Valerie, until now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 10:01 PM
Response to Reply #69
72.  And why not now?
He's an enormously honest man risking his own career to expose Bush's rushing to war with trumped up crap.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #69
95. Joe IS a lifelong republican, I believe
with all due respect for how he has spoken out against Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Dreamtoomuch_2 Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #95
115. but it sounds like he's voting for a democrat
and it's not Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:18 PM
Response to Reply #115
122. Could it be that in his view she is more representative of Republican policies?
I'm just asking. I'm not a Republican hater.

But many here are; and touting Joe Wilson's endorsement of Hillary seems like a double standard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #122
130. Could it be that Joe's just telling it like it is?
No need to speculate that deeply, methinks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Voice for Peace Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #130
137. Well, he's telling his p.o.v. The kind of reality we put so much store by is subjective.
I'm personally more confident in Obama, but I understand why many
are not, and I understand why many are more confident in Hillary.

The facts however get distorted and projected through all sorts of
subjective lenses. Ultimately each of us ought to be true to ourselves and
vote our own conscience. Nobody really knows much of anything..
it is all guesswork, projection, bias, wishful thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #130
157. Joe is honest---and has been around DC--he is telling it like it is
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Dreamtoomuch_2 Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #69
117. because Joe Wilson has a different
political view?

Would this have mattered when you did support him?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #49
90. LOVE IT---HE speaks the truth---needs much repeating
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
60. And your candidate is offering what again?
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 09:18 PM by barb162
Evangelical chants galore?

Same ol', same ol', same ol'.

Wilson makes some terrific points in this piece, one that Obama keeps distorting and saying she was FOR the war and he wasn't: "Clinton's position, stated in her floor speech, was in favor of allowing the United Nations weapons inspectors to complete their mission and to build a broad international coalition. Bush rejected her path. It was his war of choice."

As long as Obama keeps distorting Clinton's position, these kind of "boring" threads should keep running. I don't find them boring at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Corkey Mineola Donating Member (264 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #60
78. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #60
131. AMEN! (Oops, does that belong to the O camp only?)
J/K.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDeathadder Donating Member (731 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:55 PM
Response to Reply #1
68. Please
Do you know how many times I've seen the same Pro-Obama Anti-Clinton threads that just rehash what we already heard. That's what this forum has become - screaming the same thing over and over again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogcycle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:19 AM
Response to Reply #1
98. HAHAHAHAHAHA
that is TOOO funny!
Wilson's point of view is a hell of a lot more valid than that of the various bloggers who regurgitate Obama's talking points over and over and over and over...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #1
132. 'Same old threads' telling the truth need to be repeated. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rene Donating Member (758 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #1
152. Have you noticed how the bho folks are right there with the 'discredit' button whan a truthful
article or statement is made that states the obvious failings of the manm and the misrepresentation s of Hillary Clinton They're fanned out to all the web sites and discussion topics to hit the boards--lambasting truth tellers about Hillary, as fast and furious as they can. they even pile on each other for the first dozen postings or so......then honest, real people get thru with they're very thoughtful challenges to the initial rants.
It's so nice to see people come back at them and set the record straight.

What a cynical, and shallow world some of these ranters live in.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wow, devastating article. Obama turns out to be . .
. . just another opportunist politician seeking power after all. Who would'a thought that?

Don't tell that to the change-bots though. You'll be called a racist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Obama claims he isn't the "establishment candidate" but has had the backing from and pushing from th
Obama claims he isn't the "establishment candidate" but has had the backing from and pushing from the DLC and Center For American Progress since 2006.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:48 PM
Response to Reply #3
11. oh please.
you're swallowing what you want to swallow because it fits your world view. What is it about Obama that you find so objectionable? His policy stances are very close to Clinton's. He has not run a dirty campaign- and I don't think Clinton has either. So what is it that has you so hostile to Obama, specifically?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. start here:
Obama has plageriased anything from his SPEECHES to POLICY.

"Obama's (economic) plan. is the most shameless piece of potential plagiarism that I have ever seen. He basically took Clinton's words and Clinton's policies and called them his own. If I were a professor I'd give him an F and try to get him kicked out of school," said Kevin Hassett, Sen. John McCain's economic advisor and the Director of Economic Policy Studies at the American Enterprise Institute

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/13/professor-obama... /
Plagerizm

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/13/professor-obama... /

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/02/sweet_barack_ob...

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27012

obama lies (I could post more on this but won't)

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/02/28/shocker-obama-c... /
http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Cou...

obama runs the sleaziest and militant style campaign I have ever seen.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
66. I agree with you on all counts.
I wish the press would stop bowing down to him already and start investigating him. They won't like what they find.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatnHat Donating Member (669 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:58 AM
Response to Reply #66
76. That will happen
The press is already starting, little by little, it's a shame the guy got a pass this long. When "things" do come out; how many Obama supporters are going to regret or admit that they actually were duped.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #76
126. I can regret my choice over time. Why would anyone not regret a choice made in error? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jaybeat Donating Member (729 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #66
108. That will only happen AFTER he's the nominee
THEN they'll pull out all the stops, so that we can all see our way clear to President McLame.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:37 AM
Response to Reply #13
182. ...and in the debates he basically played echo chamber
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #11
24. I started out with a slight preference for C . .
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 04:40 PM by msmcghee
. . because I knew her and didn't know much about O.

As time went by - and watching the candidates - I started to see a pattern in his words. It seemed he never really stated any principles that would guide him - at least not any principles that would be objectionable to some constituents. It's hard to do that in a campaign because for every principle your opponent will find some exception or inconsistency in your past and challenge you on it. So, someone has to have some well thought-out principles before they'd want to expose them in a campaign.

He has been very good at never exposing his. That means to me that he probably doesn't have any - and prefers to speak in platitudes and direct his campaign along a "movement" axis - rather than say things that he'd have to defend. Typical politician.

As more time has gone by that perception has gone from a suspicion to pretty much a certainty in my opinion.

"Change and hope". That's just political BS in my book. He hasn't said one thing in this campaign that I find inspiring.

Maybe he's being super careful but what clinched it for me was the eagerness with which his campaign picked up on and promoted the race card slurs that started with BC's innocent comment about JJ's win in S. Carolina. And how quickly that was turned into a full assault here at DU against HRC by many O supporters calling HRC a racist and other terrible things.

That pissed me off to the point that I'll be hard pressed to vote for O in the general - although I probably will if he wins the nom.

Why the hell do Dems have to trash good and honorable Dems like the Clintons who fought like hell for us with almost no support from our party for 8 years - to support an untested and inexperienced newby like Obama? I'd respect him more if he displayed and discussed some of his principles and if his supporters showed some too. Hillary-hate is not a governing or moral principle in my book.

I am seriously thinking of switching to Independent. Obama and DU has made me feel like not much of a Dem any more. And three months ago I was pretty open to his candidacy. I was aware of HRC's negatives and could have been easily swayed if he had showed me some good reasons.

I don't think everyone who supports him does so for the wrong reasons or that he is a bad person. It's just been a very distasteful experience for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
paulk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. well said -
while I have supported Hillary for awhile now, Obama has been near the bottom of my list since the beginning of this campaign. If it was going to come down to just two candidates at this point, I would have preferred almost any other candidate than O to be the other one, and for pretty much the same reasons as you state. At least those other candidates had something I could grab onto as a reason to support or not support - Obama's campaign of "change and hope" does nothing for me. It's ephemeral.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoMojoMojo Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #11
51. Obamas negative campaign and he distorts the truth
For the past 2 years he stresses Hillarys IWR vote.
Thats negative campaigning.
He lies about his financing.No Lobby or Pac money,gives the impression that he takes no corporate money but Hillary does.When in fact he takes as much big business funding as Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
I Dreamtoomuch_2 Donating Member (29 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:09 PM
Response to Reply #51
120. here's another negative
he told Russert he doesn't have his personal memos about his time in the State Senate, he said he didn't keep that stuff.

I wonder why.

Maybe something incriminating like meetings with Tony?

Obama said he didn't see the need to keep those notes because at the time he wasn't thinking about running for president.

You can find the interview transcript at MSNBC
MEET THE PRESS

I'm not sure of the date but search 2007 starting at October.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:56 PM
Response to Reply #120
175. He just wants no contraversies during his run. Reminds me of Bush-hinding records
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #3
23. No, Joe turns out to be the NeoCon he always has been.
Yeah he's a hero because the Arthur Sulzburger told me he was, sorry not buying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
61. It is devastating. He outs Obama but good
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 09:24 PM by barb162
"It is hard to discern whether Senator Obama is a man of principle, but it is clear that he is not a man of substance. And that judgment, based on his hollow record, is inescapable."

From his real estate dealings, his consistent distortion of Clinton's record, his legislative record, etc., I'd say Obama isn't a man of principle either.

PS edit
:hi: :hi: :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mattclearing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #3
89. Not racist, just clueless. Joe Wilson apparently thinks the IWR didn't authorize force either.
Maybe he should read it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
4. Thanks JOE.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:41 PM
Response to Original message
5. But Joe Wilson was against the war...why is he attacking Obama for being against the war too?
Joe Wilson is not making any sense. What happened to him? His ability to reason has gone bonkers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. He is onto Obama's on and off support, oh I do not know approach to his
final decision.

Like many of us have been as you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoMojoMojo Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:32 PM
Response to Reply #5
29. Wilson was against Neocons lying as a basis for war

Now hes showing how Obama is a opportunist who takes whatever position will give him advantage.
Wison remains one of the few truly honest people in Washington.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dkf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 05:10 PM
Response to Reply #29
39. So only Joe Wilson can be against the war hmm?
I've lost all respect for him.

I did cringe when he and Valerie landed up on the cover of Vanity Fair. It is sad what he has become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #39
70. Where does the article state "only " he was against the war.
We all know Wilson's position on trumped up evidence for the war and his clear statements here on Hillary's position offer a cohesive picture of her position, which Obama knowingly distorts in speech after speech.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
64. Because THERE is more to it than just not being there to not vote.
Obama - the hollow man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:47 PM
Response to Reply #5
65. That's a perfectly logical piece of writing on Wilson's part.
Obama is attacking Clinton as being pro-war when she never was. He's distorting her record and he's been doing it for months while he's been holding himself up as a big anti-war soothsayer. It's a subject worthy of discussion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
6. REC
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
7. Thank you Joe!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #7
14. Nice to Joe---and Nicholson out there isn't it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. Have you seen this? No Apology Needed---I think he does a good job.


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/5...

No Apology Needed
New York Times
David Brooks

Far be it from me to get in the middle of a liberal purge, but would anybody mind if I pointed out that the calls for Hillary Clinton to apologize for her support of the Iraq war are almost entirely bogus?

I mean, have the people calling for her apology actually read the speeches she delivered before the war? Have they read her remarks during the war resolution debate, when she specifically rejected a pre-emptive, unilateral attack on Saddam? Did they read the passages in which she called for a longer U.N. inspections regime and declared, "I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial"?

If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they'd be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they'd learn something, as I did, about what kind of president she would make.

The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing the need to work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to enforce inspections.

She delivered her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in character. On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community "should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it." Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn't agree.

She sought a third way: more U.N. resolutions, more inspections, more diplomacy, with the threat of force reserved as a last resort. She was triangulating, but the Senate resolution offered her a binary choice. She voted yes in order to give Powell bipartisan leverage at the U.N.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:09 PM
Response to Reply #15
20. thank you...I haven't read this piece before
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
8. Thanks for the post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
16. "The most liberal district in the state"
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 03:55 PM by ContinentalOp
Oooh spooky. Love those right wing talking points. "so liberal that no other position would have been viable." :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niceypoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. I am curious which RWer said this "right wing talking point"...
I cannot find it anywhere on the internet except coming out of Joe Wilsons mouth, and he is far from a right winger, or is this a new way to deflect critique by pretending it came from republicans?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:57 AM
Response to Reply #22
83. Huh?
You've never heard the right wing accusing Democrats of being "the most liberal so and so in the Senate" or being from "the most liberal state in the nation"? Who even talks that way other than people who think "liberal" is a bad word?

And what kind of BS freeper logic does the phrase "so liberal that no other position would have been viable" come from? Yes, of course Obama must have spoken out against the war to appease the people who live in his far out lefty district. I'm sure he didn't actually believe anything he said. He simply had no choice but to pander to the pinkos frothing at the mouth in "the most liberal district in the state." Never mind that he and his constituents were actually right. It doesn't count because they are soooo liberal and were just being contrary for the sake of it.

No, I don't think Joe Wilson is a right winger but he sure is talking a lot of bullshit in this case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:55 PM
Response to Original message
17. Here are a lot of experts in foreign policy, national security and the military who
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 04:18 PM by ProSense
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
18. great article from an American Hero
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 03:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. Sad. An intentionally fraudulent column by Wilson. Joe should reread the IWR. Here's the pertinent
section:

http://www.c-span.org/resources/pdf/hjres114.pdf

PUBLIC LAW 107243OCT. 16, 2002

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY
FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<snip>

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION.The President is authorized to use the
Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary
and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against
the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.


(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.In connection with the
exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force
the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter
as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising
such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of
Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his
determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic
or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist
organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS.
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION.Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory
authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the
War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS.Nothing in
this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War
Powers Resolution.


<snip>

__________

Notice that this does not legally require Bush to do anything other than use his own judgment on whether diplomatic means "will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq," and then report it to Congress within 48 hours after the invasion.

Regarding diplomacy, here's what the IWR said:

__________

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by
the President to
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) 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.

__________

That's it. There is no legal requirement whatsoever regarding diplomacy. The Congress supports Bush's diplomatic efforts. Hooray.

Joe Wilson refers to what Hillary said on the Senate floor at the time. But this cover-my-ass speech means absolutely nothing--only the legal language of the authorization means anything at all. Does Wilson really think that Bush/Cheney actually cared what she was saying on the Senate floor? All they wanted was her damn vote, and Hillary gave it to them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:16 PM
Response to Original message
21. Shut up CIA tool. Hans Blix found no weapons.
Or did you miss his speech at the UN?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jackson_dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:25 AM
Response to Reply #21
80. Hans Blix supported the AUMF for the same reason Hillary did: inspections
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:57 PM
Response to Reply #80
164. Hans Blix didn't have a vote.
He's not a US rep.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BeyondGeography Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
25. Joe never thought he'd be on the outside looking in when he wrote his anti-Obama screeds
but that's where he'll be.

Maybe Susan Rice will take his phone calls by 2011 or so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JimGinPA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #25
38. He Is Somewhat Of A Self-Promoter...
I appreciate his anti-war stance but I'm certainly not swayed by his talking points in support of Hillary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:21 PM
Response to Original message
26. I'm just amazed this thread has 20+ responses and no one has called Joe a shitheel or something.
Pissing on Dems is the trendy thing around here when they say something negative about one's preference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:34 PM
Response to Reply #26
31. He's called neocon in #23. n/c
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. See, I couldn't even type my post in time.
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 04:40 PM by Forkboy
Sad how fast people are getting tossed under the bus. There's some people with rock solid ideals here. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ACanadianLiberal Donating Member (124 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #26
121. WHEN ONLY Obama is representing D? Tell me.
Are you capable of any rational thinking? I have concluded that those people on FreeRepublic.com are incapable of rational works, just a bunch of school yard bullies. You Obama people look exactly like those freepers. Go ahead, pile on Joe. You become a true hero of Obama. I doubt that he would appreciate your action here, since I still can see some humna decency in him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:52 PM
Response to Reply #121
151. WTF are you talking about?
Are YOU capable of rational thinking? I was harping on the people who pile on, not piling on myself. My whole point was how fast both sides throw people under the bus here. :shrug:

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoMojoMojo Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:25 PM
Response to Original message
27. Wow I have always respected Joe Wilson for his integrity
Read Hillarys 2002 floor speech and you will see Wilsons point about her only voting for inspections.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
milkyway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:47 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. The IWR was not about inspections! It was called AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST
IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002" for a reason!

It is absolutely laughable that Hillary and her supporters keep talking about her floor speech. Congress didn't vote on her floor speech, and that is not what granted Bush the authority to invade Iraq. Her floor speech didn't mean a thing except as a hedge in case the war went badly so she could then try to deny that she was ever in favor of the war.

Hillary and the rest of Congress abdicated their constitutional responsibility, instead leaving the decision to wage war against Iraq completely up to Bush.

If you are really that unclear about what the IWR was for, my post #19 in this thread links to it, and quotes the pertinent section granting authorization.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:06 PM
Response to Reply #35
47. Actually it was about overturning the War Powers Act
bush could have committed troops without the IWR, the only problem is the War Powers Act would have kicked in sixty days after that commitment, and Congress would have been required to be involved

Then Congress would have either had to:

Remove the troops
Extend their stay for clean up operations
or Declare War

Thos that voted for the IWR, did so because they thought they could escape accountability

There were enough Democrats who voted against it, who knew better



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:33 PM
Response to Original message
30. We've heard this before from Joe.
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 04:34 PM by hulka38
Wilson asks, "Would Obama have acted differently had he been in Washington or had he had the benefit of the arguments and the intelligence that the administration was offering to the Congress debating that resolution?" The answer is clearly no, he wouldn't have. Obama saw things clearly as they were, it was a dangerous and unnecessary policy. He knew the intelligence was being fixed around the policy of invading Iraq. He knew people were being pressured. He saw the entire campaign to go to war in that light. I wonder what arguments and intelligence Wilson thinks would've caused Obama to flip 180 degrees on this war if he were privy to it? Aluminum tubes, Curveball, yellow cake from Niger?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoMojoMojo Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #30
36. At the time ,No one knew knew Bush was lying except Scott Ritter
I certainly didnt think the Neocons would completely lie.I certainly didnt think the CIA would totally lie just to back up Bush.And you didnt know about WMDs either so quit fooling yourself and others.

Wilson is a hero for taking on the Neocons and bringing the truth about WMDs to light.
Without his candor we may have never known the extent of the Neocons deceit.
Joe Wilson is absolutely a man of integrity.
Keep that in mind when you doubt Wilsons assessment of your cult hero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. I knew Bush was lying along with millions of other Americans
as well as hundreds of members of Congress. If you didn't think the neocons would completely lie to get this war, that's your problem. I thought they'd find degraded barrels of chemical agents, clearly stuff that was not an imminent threat, left over from the Iran-Iraq war and use it to justify the invasion. The neocons were counting on that but it was not to be. Wilson did a great and courageous thing in that NYT oped. Now, he is advocating for a friend in a political campaign that is likely in it's last days. He has hitched his wagon to a desperate candidate. He said nothing heroic here. Obama is not my hero, he is my candidate. And he will be the next President of the United States.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #42
85. I too was surprised they didn't "find" something to corroborate their claims.
Dig your avatar btw.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ContinentalOp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:07 AM
Response to Reply #36
84. Are you kidding?
Did you not have internet access yet in those days? There were tons of articles online about PNAC and how the administration already planned to go into Iraq pre-911. Any sane person realized there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11 and there was plenty of information available online that discussed the weapons inspections and debunked the whole idea that Saddam had WMDs. It was a long and slow buildup pretty much starting on September 11th, 2001 and anyone who was really paying attention saw it coming a mile away and knew it was bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbmk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:23 AM
Response to Reply #36
110. Large parts of the world knew they were lying.
Seeing them make a decent man like Powell present their "proofs" at the UN was sad beyond belief.
Everyone I knew and talked to about it here in Denmark was laughing at it or at least acknowledging that the arguments were 99,9% phony.

And if that was the best intel that was presented there, I can't imagine what information the Congress members were privy to when they voted. I imagine for myself a really bad photoshopped image of Saddam with a potted plant saying WMD on the side. Can't have been much more than that.

The people in the administration had been wanting a war against Iraq since the mid 90's. WMDs and 9/11 had little to do with it.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0910-01.htm

And the argument that Obama might have changed his stance had he had to vote, is contradicted by the fact that several democrats did vote no. And given Obamas stance on it, its more than likely that he would have been among them. He listed why the war was wrong for all the since proven good reasons. Its pure speculation to assume it was a stance only taken because of his constituency.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dansolo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:08 PM
Response to Reply #30
52. Obama, unlike Hillary, would have read the NIE
I find it laughable that he attacks Obama for not having all of the information that was available to the Senators, when Hillary didn't even look at the intelligence before casting her vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #52
138. promises promises
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:35 PM
Response to Original message
32. Keep in mind that Joseph Wilson is pretty far to the right
He gave money to and voted for Bush in 2000. Its in his book.

Hillary is further to the right than Obama, and he's not going to vote for McCain so I can see him supporting Hillary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msmcghee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #32
34. Self delete
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 04:44 PM by msmcghee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoMojoMojo Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 04:57 PM
Response to Reply #32
37. Obama with 9% Republican support is to the Left of Hillary?
Lieberman is his chosen Senate mentor and will likely be an appointment
if not VP.
Anyone who votes for Cheneys energy bill is not progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jacobin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 05:17 PM
Response to Reply #37
41. Yes.
It doesn't matter which party supports which candidate.

Hillary has shown over and over that she is further to the right than Obama. particularly her IWR vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nvme Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:15 AM
Response to Reply #37
107. you missed a key word
Lieberman was the mentor chosen "for" him. english is difficult. Peharps one day, you will learn to write it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:52 PM
Response to Reply #32
67. Can you deal with the veracity of what Wilson is writing?
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 09:58 PM by barb162
Wilson was there, remember? He spoke out against the Bush rush to war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Thrill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 05:11 PM
Response to Original message
40. Get Brent Budowsky on Joe Wilson again
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 05:30 PM
Response to Original message
43. If he wasn't in the Senate to vote,
he can't claim he was against it. That's so convincing. So therefore he would have voted for it since he wasn't there and can't claim otherwise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #43
50. I wasn't in the senate and I can claim I was against it
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #50
87. And I can claim you were for it no matter what you say.
See?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hulka38 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:56 PM
Response to Reply #87
167. You are free to claim and believe any number of irrational and illogical things
which I'm sure you do quite often. k?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iceburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 05:47 PM
Response to Original message
44. Thank you Joe/nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 05:52 PM
Response to Original message
45. But there is credible reason to conclude Obama copied his10-26-02 speech
from those in Congress that has spoken two weeks before him. Obama has never even once explained how "he knew" as say Senator Bob Graham explained. As we approach the 6th anniversary of "the speech' Obama has nothing except this perhaps cloned speech on which to base his judgment. Nothing.

Obama is a hollow empty man.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
still_one Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 06:00 PM
Response to Original message
46. You are full of it Wilson, voting for the IWR was the same as overriding the War Powers Act
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 06:02 PM by still_one
what kind of double talk are you doing

The bush administration could have gone into Iraq with or without the IWR, the ONLY difference was that with the IWR, it invalidated the War Powers Act which invalidated any Congressional oversight from the executive branch

Justify that Wilson!!!

There IS no justification for that

As far as "Would Obama have acted differently?" Wonderful straw man argument, however not only did Obama speak out against the IWR, when it was also NOT the thing to do, there were quite a few OTHER Democrats WHO WERE privy to the information you said he wasn't, and THEY VOTED NO ON IT!

Which part of seperation of powers DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GeorgeGist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 07:29 PM
Response to Original message
48. Lest we forget ...
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 07:31 PM by Everybody
there were 23 Senators who chose not to be fooled by Bush, and Hillary wasn't one of them. Maybe because they listened to the Joe Wilson's of the world or maybe because they just weren't fools.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoMojoMojo Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:35 PM
Response to Reply #48
53.  What if there were WMDs? Hillary knew there was potential danger
Edited on Sun Mar-02-08 08:36 PM by MojoMojoMojo
She did the responsible thing.Urge inspections and denounce invasion.But with Bush giving her his personal assurance that he would pursue inspections,the threat of use of force should have only been used as leverage.Bush lied people died
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:38 PM
Response to Original message
54. Joe Wilson & Kristin Breitweiser
vs. Obama's Dem GOP apologist supporters. Not hard to figure whose endorsements are more worthy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:28 AM
Response to Reply #54
93. I'm not a republican and calling any of us that
makes your arguments void of credibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sueragingroz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
55. thank you for finding and posting this /nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #55
92. One can find hit pieces with no substance.
It's relatively easy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #92
128. Or find TRUE pieces with substance. Such as this one, eh? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:10 PM
Response to Reply #128
155. A person working for someone's campaign spouting speculation
is not fact based.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OzarkDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:45 PM
Response to Original message
56. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zulchzulu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
57. "Joe, let it go. Don't get bogged down."
That's what Hillary said to Joe Wilson in New Mexico after his case was thrown out about the Bush administration committing treason by exposing his wife after Joe exposed Bush on the fake intelligence about nuclear material in Africa.

"Joe, let it go." Great advice from Hillary to someone whose wife was exposed as a CIA agent.

:shrug:

So it seems rather bizarre that Joe has picked Hillary, except for the fact that he worked with Bill....


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue State Bandit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
58. Bla, bla, bla.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Johnny__Motown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:25 PM
Response to Original message
62. OK, so Hillary promised him another ambassadorship, to a country where they speak english
and wear nice clothes.


What's your point? Clinton Cronies speak out for a Clinton? Shocking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDeathadder Donating Member (731 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:58 PM
Response to Reply #62
71. So you are saying now that Joe Wilson is simply
just a Clinton Cronies and his options on Iraq and this primary don't hold water?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JoFerret Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Mar-02-08 09:33 PM
Response to Original message
63. Obama's distortion of reality
thank you Joe Wilson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goletian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
74. hillary definitely wasnt prowar by any means
and i dont think obama is trying to paint her as such, but she shouldnt have voted in favor of it back then. it was clearly a vote to allow war to happen, she should have known better. many should have known better - the thing that highlights that she should have known better is the speech she gave explaining how reluctant she was to give bush this power, but she caved anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:49 AM
Response to Original message
75. Kick and rec for Joseph Wilson and telling it like it *T*I*Z*
I'm glad that not everyone is buying into the CULT of Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:00 AM
Response to Original message
77. Obama distorts
and uses weasle words

Hillary's vote was to give clout to the UN inspectors

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatnHat Donating Member (669 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #77
79. Obama
lies and distorts that is what his campaign is about. His supporters are same way, defending the lies and distortions!, while chanting hope and change. Its not only disgusting it's a total rotten shame that people can be so damn dumb.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
goletian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:51 AM
Response to Reply #79
82. Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq
"Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq"

no distortion, just denial.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theboss Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:31 AM
Response to Original message
81. Joe Wilson is starting to reach the tipping point
There are only so many ways to right about how right you were and how mistreated you were because of it before you become completely unbearable.

Thank you for being against the war.
We agree that what happened to your wife is criminal.
Shame on Congress for not doing more about it.

What else do you want from me at this point?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:31 AM
Response to Original message
86. Kick and recommend. Nominated for "Post of the Month" honors.
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:52 AM
Response to Reply #86
88. good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saltpoint Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:55 AM
Response to Original message
91. I like Joe and Valerie. They've got it together and are exciting to
listen to.

It could be that they would make great Cabinet Secs or ambassadors. Or they could consider a run for the 112th Congress. They'd be appealing and persuasive.

I'm not sure Joe's chosen candidate for the nomination has especially great odds at this point, though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
94. Joe said correctly: Obama willfully encourages and plays off this falsehood
And this is a pattern Obama manifests in too many other areas as well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:19 AM
Response to Reply #94
109. The Obama NAFTA SHAFTA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
burythehatchet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
96. Fuck you, Joe. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #96
140. Classy retort there.
Truth hurts?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:18 AM
Response to Original message
97. No, Obama Wasn't There
Now I can see that he has to bring up how he would have voted in the war. He might have voted "for" it, he might have voted "against" it, who knows? Joseph Wilson is bringing up something that I agree with. When Obama brings up his stance on teh war, he should acknowledge, in some way, that he didn't have access to the same intelligence, and didn't have a vote in the U.S. Senate at the time.
Just my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #97
101. Obama would have voted "present".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #101
102. IF He Was A U.S. Senator,
which he wasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dawgs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:26 AM
Response to Original message
100. Scott Ritter agrees with Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoMojoMojo Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #100
170. Do you have a link to the statement Ritter supports Obama?
Please provide it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:32 AM
Response to Original message
103. Maybe Joe can explain...
why Hillary began catapulting Bush & Cheney's propaganda on Iran until the NIE was released. This is yet another example of Hillary promoting the Bush/Cheney agenda before knowing the facts. I smell a pattern.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Baby Snooks Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:42 AM
Response to Reply #103
105. I just smell Hillary
I smell her with Jack Nicholson as well. I smell her with everyone who continues to support her. He comments about Barack Obama on 60 Minutes sum her up finally. She is just beneath contempt at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
104. and it is all Obama has
a speech made during "a reelection campaign for an Illinois senate seat in the most liberal district in the state, so liberal that no other position would have been viable"

just more empty campaign rhetoric.

If he is the candidate, McCain is going to have a field day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
susankh4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:03 AM
Response to Reply #104
106. Ibid. How many times are we going to have to hear that?
About his superior judgement in making an anti-war speech at a peace rally?

Give us a break already!

Thanks for the article. K&R!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
nvme Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #104
111. one more thing
the Resume, HMMMMMMMMMMM lets see little ditty about the Havard law Review, Oh yeah Had to have attended Harvard in order to do that, then while in the Illinois State senate he was a University law professor, somewhere in there he found time to be a community organizer, raising a family(don't mean much), wait best selling author Not once but twice, and while all that crap was going on he spoke against the war. Not a popular thing at the time but spoke out anyway. so YES WE CAN
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #104
136. Precisely. nt
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 12:57 PM by libbygurl
A very flimsy basis for his 'anti-war' stance, dontcha think, that can be easily blown away by the wind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Straight Shooter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:32 AM
Response to Original message
112. Thank you, Joe Wilson.
I am really tired of hearing the banging of the drum that Obama gave a speech in 2002.

Everyone please remember that Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran, voted for the IWR. Of all people, he should have been able to weigh the merit of voting aye for the IWR as opposed to nay. Hillary also represented New York, a state directly affected by the trauma of prior failure to act by the bush administration.

Senators represent not only their conscience, but their constituents. That is also why John Edwards voted for the IWR.

People need to look back in history at The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and ask themselves how many Senators who voted for it ever seriously apologized for that FUBAR of unbelievable horror. (Ted Kennedy being one of 98 who did.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:33 AM
Response to Original message
113. I just have to kick this great and wonderful post one more time....n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #113
114. and i will give it a little kicky poo also:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #114
116. Hi rodeodance! Nice to see you on the boards...
We can use all your Hillary Clinton support :hi:...this place seems over~run by the ObamaCULT.

:kick: for Joe Wilson
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #116
118. Thanks to all of you*--------and lets give it the one-two today!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CyberPieHole Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #118
119. If ANYONE can pull off a victory it's HILLARY CLINTON!!!
GO HILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLARY!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #119
135. Kick Like A Sonofab**ch!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
barb162 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:24 PM
Response to Reply #118
144. done, kick!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:18 PM
Response to Original message
123. K&R. Someone has to keep calling O on his distortion of C's position on IWR.
Thank you, Joe Wilson!

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherine Vincent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:20 PM
Response to Original message
124. According to some here on DU, Joe Wilson is no longer credible.
How dare he criticize Obama!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mark Twain Girl Donating Member (410 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:11 PM
Response to Reply #124
141. I know, I don't get the throwing under the bus thing
I don't trust Obama and he's not my candidate, but I'm not going to suddenly denounce anyone I'd otherwise agree with because they endorse Obama. I think it was Frank Rich who wrote a positive column about Obama, but that doesn't mean I have to throw Rich under the bus. It just means I put that opinion in the "disagree with him" column and go about my business. And, just because I agree with Paul Krugman's take on Obama, it doesn't mean I agree with everything Krugman writes. This dualistic "you're with us or against us" routine is bizarre. Why is there a need to insult Wilson -- all of a sudden he's a broken record, a neo-con, a self-promoter, far right, no longer credible -- while embracing anyone who embraces Obama and passes the loyalty test?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GOTV Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:21 PM
Response to Original message
125. Sounds like nuance - voters LOVE nuance!
Regardless of speculation on what he might have done, the facts is Obama can draw a clearer distinction between himself and McCain than can Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AtomicKitten Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
127. She abdicated her war-declaring powers to an idiot in the worst policy decision evah.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #127
129. Yeah, she's far worse than Bush II - whose war it actually was, hey?
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 12:37 PM by libbygurl
Don't need to answer that. I know what you'll say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #127
134. Take your whin to Bushco where it belongs
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
139. Obama
shrugs off responsibility and refuses to take positions

the classic opportunist
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ExPatLeftist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:12 PM
Response to Original message
142. I greatly respect Ambassador Wilson
...and that fact is not changed in the least by his choice to support a different candidate than I.

We all weigh the situation and choose what is best for us or most matches our own personal ideals. That doesn't make either of us an idiot, a robot, a cultist, a traitor, or the personification of any other childish putdown, just two individuals who are acting as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:23 PM
Response to Original message
143. I REALLY liked Joe Wilson
(and hoped he'd have an appointment in Biden's administration :7), but it seems as though he's REALLY pitching for a slot in Hillary's, should she become the president.

I think it's fine to back her, and to sing her praises, but don't stoop to this crap. Clark hasn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Annces Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
147. Thanks Joe Wilson
He knows superficiality when he sees it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #147
156. Unless he is god, he can't make speculation real.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlackVelvet04 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:30 PM
Response to Original message
148. K&R n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:40 PM
Response to Original message
149. It still astounds me that george bush and his neocon gang are not held responsible
for any of the disasters they have brought. To recap for those who don't believe in the past:

George Bush was appointed to the presidency.
George Bush failed to protect the country from Sept. 11th terra attack.
George Bush milked same terra attack for all it was worth.

UNITED WE STAND.

Hello, anyone remember any of this?

The UN weapons inspectors were sent in to prove the neocon's claims of WMD.
Congress passed the IWR to give the president the muscle he sought in enforcing those inspections.
The inspections were working. That didn't stop Dick, George, Rummy and Condi.

Plan B. The administration lied their asses off. We wouldn't want the proof to come in the form of a mushroom cloud, would we?

Would you like to be a member of congress, having the whole country in a UNITED WE STAND frenzy, demanding that you do something to keep Merca from getting nuked?

Most members of congress went along, a disappointing but not unexpected vote in the context of the time.

People should remember how many supported the administration in doing WHATEVER IT TAKES to get the terrists. Dick "Mad Dog" Cheney was going after congress for leaks, trying to cut congress off from access to classified versions of the threats. It was part of the plan to achieve war, and it worked.

If anyone should be blamed and held accountable for the war, why not start with the neocon administration who brought us war, and the same republicans Obama now brags about winning over, who supported the atmosphere that stifled dissent.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:19 PM
Response to Reply #149
166. Well said. Thank you. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
150. "I was involved in that debate in every step of the effort to prevent this senseless war"
That statement by Joe Wilson undercuts any argument he makes in support of Hillary's judgement in this matter.

The only way to "prevent this senseless war" was to NOT leave the decision up to GW Bush. It was obvious at the time that given the authority, Bush would invade no matter what.

Mr. Wilson makes some valid points about Obama not being in the Senate at the time, but anyone who reads the speech Obama made in 2002 will see he was spot-on in his judgement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
the grey area Donating Member (25 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:08 PM
Response to Original message
153. When will this end?????
I cannot wait until this Democratic nomination is over. I am tired of feeling anger towards other democrats due to this cleft between our party. If you are a democrat...quit sitting on Obama or Clinton. Instead, consider how fortunate we are to have the candidates we have. It could be far worse, we could have to choose between McCain and Huckabee!!! That would be a sickening prospect. So, no more B/S attacks on our amazing dem's. If you haven't anything good to say...then please focus your shit at the Republicans and their plague of conervative thinking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #153
158. Jan 9, 2009
Until then we will be reading posts about how Hillary should have been the nominee
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capn Sunshine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:09 PM
Response to Original message
154. Lest we forget
Joe Wilson is a registered republican. And has not changed. And will probably vote for McCain.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:46 PM
Response to Reply #154
160. 'Will probably vote for McCain.' Pure speculation, and useless, too.
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
161. It was not politically opportune anywhere to oppose the War in 2002
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 02:53 PM by TomClash
On July 27, 2004 Barack was addressing the Democratic Convention and he said this:

"A while back, I met a young man named Shamus at the VFW Hall in East Moline, Illinois. He was a good-looking kid, six-two or six-three, clear-eyed, with an easy smile. He told me he'd joined the Marines and was heading to Iraq the following week. As I listened to him explain why he'd enlisted, his absolute faith in our country and its leaders, his devotion to duty and service, I thought this young man was all any of us might hope for in a child. But then I asked myself: Are we serving Shamus as well as he was serving us? I thought of more than 900 service men and women, sons and daughters, husbands and wives, friends and neighbors, who will not be returning to their hometowns. I thought of families I had met who were struggling to get by without a loved one's full income, or whose loved ones had returned with a limb missing or with nerves shattered, but who still lacked long-term health benefits because they were reservists. When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going, to care for their families while they're gone, to tend to the soldiers upon their return, and to never ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, secure the peace, and earn the respect of the world."

That's not a guy on the same page as George Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 03:09 PM
Response to Original message
163. At some point BO needs to decide which he likes more; having cake or eating it. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
165. His hollow judgment and hollow record match nicely..
with his hollow words
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kikiek Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 05:19 PM
Response to Original message
168. Wilson's endorsement of Hillary is very powerful. He knows what he is talking about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AikidoSoul Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
169. Wow! So much of this bickering
and name calling is totally unnecessary.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MojoMojoMojo Donating Member (579 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 06:40 PM
Response to Original message
171. Obama has used negative campaigning for 2 years
"Hillary voted yes on IWR" is negative campaigning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #171
172. "Hillary voted yes on IWR" is FACT
And it is perfectly legitimate campaigning when Hillary constantly asserts she is more qualified because of her experience.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saracat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 07:09 PM
Response to Original message
173. Joe Wilson is an American hero!
Edited on Mon Mar-03-08 07:31 PM by saracat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maribelle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #173
174. He truly is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
libbygurl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
176. .
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Qanisqineq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 09:11 PM
Response to Original message
177. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
judaspriestess Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:09 PM
Response to Original message
178. K&R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hoof Hearted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
179. Under the bus Joe! Under the bus!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
QuicklyLoving Donating Member (15 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-03-08 11:33 PM
Response to Original message
180. We shouldn't guess how Obama would have voted
Many of us take sides: some assume Obama would have voted for the blank check, while others believe Obama would have stayed true to his beliefs and his vote as a state legislator.
But we should learn how to say "I don't know". Maybe we don't know how he would have voted. It would be impossible to "guess" his vote. And we will never know, unless a new time machine is invented.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maddy McCall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 01:00 AM
Response to Original message
181. Here's to Joe.
K/R
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amborin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 03:45 AM
Response to Original message
183. Wilson calls Obama's bluff
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-04-08 04:19 AM
Response to Original message
184. One of the few heroes of these dark 8 years
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 28th 2014, 06:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC