Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

42 Dead in Eight Iraq Suicide Bombings (hillary quote)

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 » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:35 AM
Original message
42 Dead in Eight Iraq Suicide Bombings (hillary quote)
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 11:40 AM by leftchick
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&nci...

At least eight suicide bombers staged attacks in and around Baghdad alone on Saturday, targeting religious gatherings and Iraqi checkpoints. An Associated Press count of the dead from those attacks alone totaled 24, but many more explosions were audible in the capital throughout the day.


<snip>

Saturday's bombings, during the religious festival of Ashoura, came despite stepped-up security around the country. Authorities had hoped to prevent a repeat of last year's attacks during Ashoura in which insurgents killed at least 181 people in twin blasts in Karbala and Baghdad.


The attacks also came as a five-member U.S. Congressional delegation that includes Senator Hillary Clinton (news - web sites), a Democrat from New York, met with Iraqi government officials in Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone.


"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton told reporters.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. Their "failure"...



U.S. soldiers look at a bus destroyed by a suicide bomber in a Shi'ite district of Baghdad February 19, 2005. At least five people were killed and 46 were injured when a suicide bomber climbed onto the bus and detonated his explosives. Photo by Akram Saleh/Reuters U.S.soldiers look at a bus devastated by a suicide bomber in a Shi'ite district of Baghdad February 19, 2005. Five people were killed and 46 were injured when a suicide bomber climbed onto the bus and detonated his explosives.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:44 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Who's failure?
The "insurgency" or the security forces or ???

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:59 AM
Response to Reply #3
8. Hillary say the "insurgency's" failure
It is actually everyones failure that this is happening The US, The IIG, those pathetic Iraqi troops we are trying to count on.
Everyone except of course the poor Iraqis who never asked for an invasion and occupation and suffer daily the consequences.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 12:02 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. She has to mean *'s.
The corollary is that we're responsible for any bloodshed unleashed as the result of overthrowing or causing a dictatorship to crumble.

I've always found dictatorships to be highly stable and great at making sure violence was the monopoly of just a few loonies, instead of being available to a large number of loonies. (And respect the research confirming and the old insight that societies are least stable and most problematic when they're moving from a totalitarian system to a more open system. The old order doesn't compel obeisance, and people haven't bought into or agreed on the new one.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chaz4jazz Donating Member (304 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. obviously, the "authorities" failure
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 12:24 PM by chaz4jazz
if you read the papargraph above: "Authorities had hoped to prevent a repeat of last year's attacks during Ashoura..."

The read Clinton's remark: "The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure."

She's talking about the "authorities," Iraqi and U.S.

Thanks
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
41. So Hillary was making her remark.....
.....in reference to the statement above it?

That's a stretch. Pass the Koolaid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lovuian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:44 AM
Response to Original message
2. I agree this is a disaster
Such a waste of life!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. Every one of these reports should end with the statement,
"The chaos and carnage began when george w. bush lied to the world, the nation, and our own troops - and invaded Iraq without cause or justification."

None of this now, nor what has ocurred since the bloody "shock and awe" began, would have taken place if not for that cowards lies and crimes.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HysteryDiagnosis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Bravo... well said, how much would it cost to get small passages like
these into newspapers across the nation..... shrub wanted a war, well damn, now he's got one.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
reprobate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #5
48. It's not a matter of cost. It's a matter of them accepting the ad.


And that they won't do. The M$M is now just an arm of the administration, therefor they will not accept ads that denigrate the Great Uniter.*



*Bush has united the world against the United States. The ONE thing he has been succesful at in his entire life.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:54 AM
Response to Original message
6. At some point the Shiites are going to say ENOUGH
At some point they will decide to do something about the suicide bombings and attacks and they will form their own militia (or Al Sadr will reactivate his men). They may even do some car bombings and suicide attacks of their own. US troops will then be stuck in the middle of a civil war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. They already have, that's why they voted in such large numbers
The result is that they have majority control over the government now. The Sunnis probably are, at best, ambivalent to this new situation. At worst, they'll reject it and try to provoke civil war in order to break up Iraq so that they can establish their own zone of autonomy like the Kurds have up north.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malva Zebrina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
7. the Honorable junior Senator is playing a game
and I don't like it.

Not one bit.

Perhaps we should send her some information re the policies of a fascist regime that has been totally inept. that lied repeatedly in order to seize our oil that is under their sand--

let's say Fallujah, for instance.

She is riding off the policies of Bush, it seems to me and that is somewhat duplicitious and disingenuous.

That's how I see it from my liberal point of view. As if five years of the same from Bush isn't enough, now we have the same game played by a political opportunist who want to run for president?

If the rumors of Condi Rice, a known liar, running in '08 are true, and they may indeed be true given the hints thrown out of the White House and the buildup of her "diplomatic" expertise, and Senator Clinton takes Rice on, I think she will lose using this strategy--at the least she will not get my vote for each revelation serves to turn me off more than the last.

Senator Clinton needs to change her chess pieces. They are out of date, imo and I think she is embracing the wrong strategy.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreedomSpirit Donating Member (49 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 08:15 PM
Response to Reply #7
69. What astounds me
about Hillary's current stance and voting record is the fact that Bill and she were the VICTIMS of the VRWC now in the WH. She said so herself years ago on the Today Show ( :puke: ) ... I just don't understand it. Why is she drinking the Puke Kool Aid?? :wtf:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FreeStateDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 09:01 AM
Response to Reply #7
79. The Clintons will do what is best for the Clintons.
I think their record speaks for itself. You need only look at how Bill is now kissing Bush ass and announcing his love for the idiot. Real democrats have more principals then merely being opportunistic political whores. The Clintons will eventually completely destroy the Democratic Party to achieve their egocentric power hungry ambitions. Their fatal flaw is a lack of morality in their pursuit of personal goals. Hillary will wreck the party to gain the nomination in 2008 when anyone with half a brain knows she will be disastrously defeated by anyone the republicans nominate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bluestateguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 12:01 PM
Response to Original message
9. Hillary is mispositioning herself for president in 2008
The conventional wisdom is that she is unelectable. That seems increasingly likely to me, but not for the same reasons that the Freepers would say. She does more and more to alienate the Democratic base every day by trying to come accross as a "tough gal" Margaret Thatcher type. It will not work. Right wing white male war mongers will never be convinced, and all she will do is alienate Democratic primary voters.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. she started out as a goldwater kid
i think bill brought her outta that....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #11
43. Maybe she's going full circle? It happens. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:11 PM
Response to Reply #9
42. Agreed 100%! And what's a.........
Freeper?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wright Patman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 12:29 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hillary is characterized
by her enemies as a "radical feminist."

Her antagonism toward the insurgents is consistent with her feminist beliefs as the suicide bombers do not view females as anything other than baby-making chattel slaves.

Saddam, for all his faults, was one of the most "feminist" Arab leaders one could have ever hoped for.

Furthermore, she represents New York, which has the second greatest concentration of Jews outside of Israel (and may even have a similar number at this point for all I know).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NIGHT TRIPPER Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 12:30 PM
Response to Original message
14. Hillary, you're such a "MORAN"- attacks indicate the RESISTANCE FAILED? No
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 12:41 PM by NIGHT TRIPPER
No you little politicianette,
(a play on marionette),
Actually, The ABSENCE of ATTACKS would indicate failure of the resistance.
The existence of attacks indicate the resistance is thriving.
Dohhh.---WTF?
on EDIT:
for those of you who think she meant the failure of "the U.S. occupation"--
please look--->:
Quote is:"The fact that you have these suicide bombers now, wreaking such hatred and violence while people pray, is to me, an indication of their failure," Clinton told reporters."
the subject= these suicide bombers
"their" has to refer to the "subject in the sentence- there's no other way to interpret it gramatically--

sorry, but she's trying to be "one of them"--one the "winners" of Iraq (and part owner of all that "sweet crude")

it's like the Clear Skies Act helps the air by allowing more pollution.
or the Healthy Forest Initiative helping by allowing loggers to cut down National Parks for profit. and on and on with this reverse reasoning.
The reverse logic seems to have rubbed off on everyone in D.C.


A Dem version of Shrub is not what we need.
Not as a small voice nor as a "leader".

DEAN kicks ASS..
Hillary kisses ASS.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #14
44. Carry on.....n/t
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 06:53 PM by Blue to the bone
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PROGRESSIVE1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. The Junior Senator from New York is a MORAN!
:eyes:

I do NOT want Hillary as OUR President! Period! No Questions!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
45. Okay, is MORAN some sort of..........
......inside joke?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:32 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Yes.
It comes from this pro-war demonstrator.



The original Moran.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #49
53. Thank you, I feel better. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Selatius Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 02:39 PM
Response to Original message
17. I condemn everyone who kills innocent civilians
Nobody is clean in this affair. The US government has proven itself at times to be as merciless and even more so than some of these elements of the resistance. Not all resistance groups operating in Iraq utilize suicide bombers against innocent men, women, and children, but the ones that do are a sorry lot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:46 PM
Response to Reply #17
27. I agree, killing innocent stanerbys is horrible--no excuse (either side)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 04:43 PM
Response to Reply #17
32. The Bush Criminals and their agents have killed 100,000 civilians
A pox on them
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hollowdweller Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
18. They are trying to get the Shiites to fight back and start a Civil war,
but I don't think they will cause they got the power now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
allemand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:07 PM
Response to Original message
19. Eight suicide bombings, 55 dead
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
20. More Insurgent "failure" Hil:55 Dead in Eight Iraq Suicide Bombings
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
46. Hate to see what happens if they meet with success! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #46
52. Oh they did...
... didn't you hear - it was a "catastrophic success".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:38 PM
Response to Original message
21. Okay, that's a dumb thing she said...
but no more stupid than some things other democrats have said, whose names I won't mention. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:39 PM
Response to Original message
22. Some think Hillary should have said "Iraq was better off with Saddam".
I doubt if those who sincerely believe Hillary didn't respond correctly will ever hold political office themselves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Placebo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. You said it.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftchick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. you think?
why do you say that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
29. Folks complain about how certain Democrats should respond in
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 03:58 PM by oasis
certain situations, without any thought to what the consequences might be.

Edit to add: Hill has a brillaint carrer ahead of her, either in the senate or a higher office. She is well aware of the right wing tactic of taking what one says out of context. Imagine, if you will, future anti-Hillary ads during a campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 04:44 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Imagine Monika in an anti-Hillary campaign
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. Who would be dumb enough to use Lewinsky in a campaign against Hill?
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 05:02 PM by oasis
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 08:23 PM
Response to Reply #29
71. why doesn't she talk about that?
bush is damaging national security, he's wrecking havoc on america's alliances, he's got half the country hating him, he's poisoned the media as trusted news sources, he's encouraged, indeed caused massive corruption in the voting system....and hill's problem is with iraqis?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 11:42 PM
Response to Reply #71
75. When large scale attacks occur while your in Iraq, that's going to be the
topic for discussion. Makes sense to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:43 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. She has to be careful not to in anyway condem the Adm. --as they would
claim she is harming the troops..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #26
30.  Hillary knows that anything she says that can be twisted by the right,
will definitely be twisted.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pretzel4gore Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 11:05 AM
Response to Reply #26
81. condemning media corruption might be easier now then later
eventually, the ruling class, of which clinton's obviously part, is going to be forced to stop this cart-before-horse media, which ignores bad for bush news all the time, news which one day(?)....well everybody here knows.... Hillary's did brush on the vrwc (vast rightwing conspiracy) once and she knows its main impact is in news reportage....the iraq war was premised on an organized vrwc of lies.....so she could easily let the mediawhores know: we're gonna get you if you keep this crap up! (i sincerely believe the media manager guys are horrified at situ and are only letting brite hum bill the liar, fox'news' and cnn's less blitzer, brian williams at nbc and so on plus limbah-humbug and hannazi, goofy savage and imus etc run amok, because the mass media under their control was guilty of staging the jr bush seizure of power in the 1st place ie the 2k election...911 simply burnt their bridges on them) The usa hasn't turned into a fascasti state w/out the powerful and truly patriotic knowing it, and hating it! No one (i even heard michael kinsey(?) say on AAR that he can't understand why MSM is unable to do their job of unbiased news reporting!) seems to know what motivates the 'massa' media.... It's very hard to believe the american media has been blackmailed by the bush criminals, but why else are they committing treason, and ruining the future?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MisterP Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #22
37. same for those who say this is the greatest thing since sliced bread
after all, the DLC gave us such a great campaign last November! Daschle's plan really worked!
(Just a little sarcasm--provides 5 percent of the USDA-recommended dose of causticism! low in saturated fat!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Martin Eden Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #22
83. What's the use of getting elected ...
... if you allow yourself to be co-opted by the powers that got us into Iraq?

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was based on lies, and so is the current rationale for "staying the course." Hillary says the issue now is helping the fledgling Iraqi democracy succeed, and that the controvery over the decision to invade and the mistakes made after Saddam was ousted are in the past.

In my opinion, the past and present are inextricably linked. Iraq was invaded to establish a permanent U.S. military presence in that country and to exert control over oil resources. This hasn't changed. Hillary was in agreement with McCain this morning on Meet The Press, indicating our military would likely be in Iraq for years to come.

The presence of our military in Iraq is in itself a major problem. It fuels the insurgency, promotes the radical Islamic world view, is the best recruitment for terrorists, and provides valuable training for jihadists. The United States has lost credibility, and has become much more hated and despised because of what we have done and are doing in Iraq.

Hillary is playing right along with the neoconservative agenda, and soldifying the "legitimacy" of our presence there. If we accept the conventional wisdom that the presidency can only be win by playing along with this agenda, then we have capitulated to the neoconservatives, the warhawks, and corporate greed in foreign policy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:42 PM
Response to Original message
23. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 03:50 PM
Response to Reply #23
28. That post is an indication of your failure
to stay focused on the issues.

Bill's sexual appetites, weakness, whatever is in no way Hillary's fault.

Shame on you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LinuxInsurgent Donating Member (475 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 04:31 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. sure...
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 04:42 PM by LinuxInsurgent
whatever you say Toucano...meanwhile, marriage infidelity is purely related to the fact that people are just not reading the Bible enough, right?

Sure it is her fault...in part. When a man has no fidelity to his woman, it's both the fault of the man for not honoring the promise he made when he took the vow of marriage...and also the fault of the woman, in some way (she's a nag, she's not intellectually stimulating, she's not physically stimulating, she's doesn't add to the marriage, whatever.) I don't subscribe to the belief that when a man leaves a woman to be another it is purely the man's fault and the woman he left is totally innocent. That's soap opera moral judgments...sorry...but women are also to blame.

For a reason or another, Bill just wasn't getting sexual satisfaction with Hillary...and decided to indulge in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Besides that, I was highlighting the hypocrisy of highlighting the "failures" of a foreign insurgency when she herself has much to answer about her own failures, as a wife, as a public servant, and in other factors. Sorry...I'm not a mindless "hillary lover"...I find her to be an opportunistic, establishment Democrat...and I'm more to the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party.

So...please...get over it. Hillary is a human being...and she is subject to the trials and tribulations of humanity...including issues of sexuality, sexual appetites...and yes...sexual failure as a wife. No one is above that...I'm not...

Anyway, I made the comment as a "tongue in cheek" slight at HIllary...i'm more concerned about her political issues...and how she's not a very trustworthy politician. And she's FLAT WRONG on calling the insurgency a failure...it's a success by any measure...it's surely on its path of derailing American plans...so it's suceeding.

That being said...I'd vote for her over a Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Your ignorance of relationships is GROTESQUE!
I said nothing about the Bible so fuck that.

Your "'tongue in cheek' slight" was a personal attack based on your ignorance. It isn't your position to evaluate her "failure" as a wife.

For a member of the "Democratic Wing" of the Democratic party, you sure stooped to the Republican talking points about Hillary mighty quickly.

And for someone "more concerned" about her "political issues", you are a total failure at demonstrating that in this thread.

Know this: Bill Clinton could have been married to Angelina Jolie with a mattress tied to her back and every orifice open 24/7 and he STILL would have engaged in the affair with Monica.

The concept of someone being a "sexual failure as a wife" is absurdly out of date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igotsunshine Donating Member (24 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #36
39. Don't waste you time trying to be rational.
Anybody who blames Hillary for Bill's escapades is hopeless. I admire the fact that she found a way to save her marriage and keep her family together. She will need their support in '08.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LinuxInsurgent Donating Member (475 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #39
59. to each his own
You're entitled to have your opinion that Bill's BAD...and Hillary's good. For me things are not that black and white...Hillary and Bill had been having marital problems for a long while...they were a politically-opportunistic marriage...the love they had from their law school years had dissipated as a result of their political activities...they were both playing social roles (not uncommon in political marriages).

All I'm saying is that the possibility that Bill Clinton was with Monica because of his frustrations with Hillary exists. That's all...I don't know why such a natural and every-day occuring characteristic of modern relationships is such a shocker for people.

I blame Hillary partly...but, of course, the perpetrator takes the lion's share of the blame, and that's Bill clinton, the man in control of the offending penis in question.

Regarding her runnin in 08, i sincerely hope not. Clinton is part of the DLC centrist, establishment mainstream of the Democratic Party...a political opportunist...I don't like those sort of characters. I prefer more democratic-progressive minded individuals, like Dennis Kucinich.

That being said...if she does run as the Dem candidate, I will evaluate what is being offered as Third Party candidates...and if the pickings don't look good, I'll vote Hillary to beat the Republican candidate.

Now...people...let's get back to the most important tings in life...and not argue about relationships facts in modern life...if I had a nicken for every man I know (hell, women too!) that left their significant others because of some emotional or sexual failure on their part, I'd be rich. Hell...I'm sure some of my ex's might launch the same criticism of me. So...it's a fact of life...it happens to everyone. So let's deal with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #59
74. No one said Bill was bad and Hillary was good.
You started this, not by making a critique on Sen. Clinton's STATEMENT - which you were perfectly free to do - but by making personal attack straight from the lips of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

Now, your beef is she's a DLC centrist. Funny that wasn't the first thing that came to mind for you.

Worse yet, you have the ingorant gall to claim claim that she's a "failure as a wife", a judgement that's not up to you, but only left up to her husband to decide. It seems to me, he's pretty satisfied with his "failure as a wife" since he's still married to her.

"...if I had a nicken for every man I know (hell, women too!) that left their significant others because of some emotional or sexual failure on their part, I'd be rich."

I'm sorry you don't understand. Except in cases where there's emotional or physical abuse, it's the one who does the wandering that has the issues, not the partner that remains faithful.

Nothing you've described mirrors "modern relationships", but just the opposite. What you said - in your original post - speaks back to a time when a woman was responsible for her husbands happiness. If he drank, it's cause she nagged him. If he strayed, she didn't keep herself in shape. If he wasn't well, she wasn't a good cook. If he didn't get the promotion at the office, it's cause she didn't get along with the other wives. If he beat her, it's cause she was mouthing off.

It's ridiculous. The only thing shocking is your lack of understanding.

Bill did what Bill was going to do because Bill had issues. It was about his lack of self-control and his need to push limits. Not because Hillary was a "sexual failure". Again, shame on you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LinuxInsurgent Donating Member (475 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #74
77. yeah, but.
If you want me, I can dissect Clinton's statements all you'd like...and not touch the personal. but, in the case of Monica Lewinsky, it's kind of hard to ignore the personal reasons for Clinton's infidelity. Hannity and the right-wingers attack on a personal level, even when the issue is purely political or non-personal. That's the difference. When it comes to Bill and Hillary's marriage...i'm not gonna put on a veil and say "it must have been politics that made Clinton get his dick sucked by another woman". No...I'm a human being...i understand human relationships, desires (passing or permanent), frustrations in sexuality, and frustrations in other aspects. I venture the guess that Clinton was with Monica Lewinsky, not because of professional reasons, but because of personal frustrations with his marriage. And...I said that Hillary has part to blame on that...Bill gets most of it...but she also wasn't the wife Bill wanted her to be.

Now on her being a DLC Centrist...hey...i laid out what I believed on this aspect of her. You can assume all the assumptions about why I thought of this second, as much as you like. Enjoy wasting your time.

oh my god...and the clincher...that he must be satisified with her, so that's why he is still married? Please don't tell me you are that naive...Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton are still married to preserve the social, political, and economic benefits of their "marriage" that it gives them. The Clintons is now an institution, not of love, but of convenience, power, and status. They realized that, in their age, it's unlikely that either of them is going to find a partner of equal social status and power than each other. Sure, they could go single...but what would that give them? Hillary enjoys being able to be a "Clinton" at the end (and the INSTANT status it gives her, as an upper-class woman), and Bill Clinton is an old dog that is more interested in preserving his legacy as a President of the United States, than carousing the city streets looking for young women to seduce (and he easily could). It has NOTHING to do with love...and on that aspect, the marriage has failed. That's obvious to anyone who researches Bill and Hillary's marriage. That's what I pointed out...their marriage, as it should be failed. It's now no better than an arranged marriage...a marriage of planning, convenience, and other factors. They might yet share love for their daughter...but, I find it highly unlikely that their marriage is still "lovey-dovey".

You can believe what you wish about who is to blame for this....I don't let the woman off the hook. If Clinton was beating the crap out of his daughter, yeah, I'd try to find out what were his issues, but that doesn't rule out the investigation of what part (if any) did his wife had to play in his issues becoming severe. The difference between you and I is that you ascribe FULL BLAME on Bill...while I ascribe MOST BLAME on Bill, but also some on Hillary. Each to their own opinion.

"Nothing you've described mirrors "modern relationships", but just the opposite. What you said - in your original post - speaks back to a time when a woman was responsible for her husbands happiness. If he drank, it's cause she nagged him. If he strayed, she didn't keep herself in shape. If he wasn't well, she wasn't a good cook. If he didn't get the promotion at the office, it's cause she didn't get along with the other wives. If he beat her, it's cause she was mouthing off."

Wait a minute...I didn't say that the woman should be the man's plaything at all times, and at his beckon. But you must be really naive if you think modern relationships can work with a woman that is so intoxicated with her feminist precepts, that she won't bring pleasure, whether it be physical, emotional, or intellectual, to her partner. Her partner is with her because he made a choice to be with her, because she complements him in some way. And that aspect of relationships NEVER goes the way of history...if she's not the partner that Bill wants her (because she's a liberated feminist woman), than Bill has the right to say, "you know what...this is not what I want...find a man that will play this game".

I personally am a male feminist...I believe in the equal rights of women, and in destroying patriarchal relationships all throughout society..but that doesn't mean that the logic of relationships (what makes humans come together, what attracts them) changes. I happen to believe that when it comes to sexual attraction...there's no ideology in the world that can explain it or regulate it. People don't shape their sexual attractions based on what Marx said...or what some feminist said. I think that's where a lot of feminists move on to the stage of being "femi-nazis". When they try to move from the correction of patriarchal attitudes in society and equalizing relations, to regulating the behavior of a romantic relationships on terms acceptable to the woman, but unacceptable to the man. It doesn't work that way...a relationship is a balance and give and take of both of the desires of the woman and the man. If either upsets the balance, the relationship is over. A man need not relinquish his desires of what he wants in a woman...because the woman holds modernized feminist precepts that bar her from "pleasuring her man", nor should he have the right to beat her "if she mouthed off". There's a balance to relationships...as with anything else...and when that balance is upset, one or both of the partners begin to stray. There's more than 50% of American marriages to prove this.

"
Bill did what Bill was going to do because Bill had issues. It was about his lack of self-control and his need to push limits. Not because Hillary was a "sexual failure". Again, shame on you."

You believe that...and I believe that Bill Clinton was frustrated with the sexual aspect of his life. He didn't wake up one morning and say "boy...how can I push the limits, provoke the Republicans, and screw my wife's reputation". He was a man with a sexual libido...he saw Monica, became friendly with her, was horny one night, she was around...he proposed the idea to her, she got star-strucked that the President was asking HER to suck his dick...and she did it. Both of them had their reasons for doing it. The question is...why did he not ask Hillary to do it? Here is where the terrain becomes "guessing". I guess that Hillary, in the analogy of Asian marriage relationships, is the First Wife...the status woman, the bearer of the children, the equal (unequal?) partner of the marriage institution...she is no longer the sexual pleasurer...for that, Bill resorts to "second wife", Monica Lewinsky, and third and fourth (Paula Jones, the others, etc.).

We don't have to agree with the concept of multiple wives (I don't). But, I can understand the mentality that governed Bill's relationship with Hillary, and his relationship with Monica...it's too simplistic to just say, "he's a man...got a dick...they're all cheats...women are totally innocent". I happen to believe that it's more complex.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toucano Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #77
80. "she wasn't the wife Bill wanted her to be."
So that's her "fault", worthy of your scorn and derision? That's simply archaic. It isn't a woman's job to be the wife her husband "want(s) her to be".

Infidelity is not a quest for a better orgasm. Talk about "soap opera moral judgement".

"But, I can understand the mentality that governed Bill's relationship with Hillary, and his relationship with Monica."

No you can't. You just projecting your own feelings and beliefs onto him. There's nothing to suggest Bill share's your view that his wife's job is to be "sexual peasurer".

If I accept your "Asian marriage" model, then Hillary's only "failure" is being first wife. Bill's infidelity would be inevitable, so how can she be blamed? By the way, in the western world, we have the Madonna/Whore complex or Madonna/Whore syndrome. Even so, the Madonna isn't blamed simply by virtue of being in that position. It's the man who has the issues.

http://divorcesupport.about.com/od/sexualproblems/a/mad...
For some men, love and sex don't mix. For them, love is reserved for 'good' women, and sex is reserved for 'bad' women. In cases of the Madonna/Whore Complex (or Syndrome), a husband's relationship with his wife may be based upon the unmet intimacy needs he had as an infant. He may unconsciously seek out a woman who reminds him of his mother so that those needs can finally be met.

When these men marry, they will marry a 'good' woman, a virginal woman. They will love her, they will protect her, they will treasure her.

But they don't feel comfortable having sex with her once they marry. It would be 'dirty', like having sex with their own mother -- the purest 'good' woman in their life. And, once their wife becomes the mother of their children, the lines blur even more for him between his wife and his mother.

If they are like many men who separate love from sex, and 'good' women from 'bad' women, they will have sex, but it will be with 'bad' women, and it will be sex for the sake of sex, not particularly as an expression of love.


Doesn't sound like it's the wife's fault she's not the "sexual pleasurer", does it? Sounds like he wouldn't accept her in that role. Sounds like this is the man's psycho-sexual challenge.

How would you like it if after every post you make, someone came along and said you were a failure as a husband because you couldn't satisfy your ex-wife?

Would that be a worthy criticism, or would that be out of line? Should we evaluate everything you say in the light of your being a failure as a husband?

It isn't about being a "Hillary lover". You should just admit that you made an unwarranted personal attack, and it was inaccurate and out of line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LinuxInsurgent Donating Member (475 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #36
56. free speech.
It's my position to criticize whatever I feel like. I believe that her husband Bill went to Monica Lewinsky PARTLY out of the fact that she was not the wife he wanted her to be. it's also PARTLY his fault for not honoring their marriage. i said that both had a party to blame.

I resent your insinuation that I'm a Republican sympathizer using talking points from them. I would remind you that the DU rules are to discuss the issues, and not label the posters.

I said that I am more concerned about her political faults than her personal ones...but I made a "tongue in cheek" remark about her own personal life. Sue me.

Your opinion regarding Bill's motivations are just that...opinion. My insinuation is my opinion...i did not parade it as absolute fact. I happen to believe that, when it comes to that wife role, Hillary failed. Believe what you believe...I'll believe what I will believe.

in your world, a wife can NEVER be a sexual failure...well..I got news for you...human beings are human beings, male or female...and everyday, relationships break up over the failures of one or both of the members for a lot of reasons, sexual, intellectual, emotional, etc. All I'm saying is that the possibility exists that Bill Clinton was with Monica because he was frustrated with his sexual life with Hillary Clinton. I condemn Bill for cheating on his wife (I think he should be courageous and be single...if he wants to sleep around), but that doesn't mean I'm gonna be blind to the reasons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
47. Personally, I think Hillary's greatest failure was......
........not dumping his sorry ass for the things he did long before Ms. Lewinski knelt before the Alter of Bill.

Which brings up another question, if not, then why not? Perhaps the answer to that would be even more troubling.........
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #47
50. What displeases you about one of our nation's BEST presidents ever?
Pray tell.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:54 PM
Response to Reply #50
54. He was one of our nation's BEST presidents ever.....
.......I could just never bring myself to accept the way he treated his wife and family. The shame must have been terrible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:03 PM
Response to Reply #54
55. You don't have to "accept the way he treated his wife and family". Hillary
and Bill knew they had to fight legions of Scaife funded hate mongers before he ever took office. They realized that the "Lewinsky scandal" was advanced by right wing whack jobs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #55
58. Okay then, I don't accept the way he treated his family....
....he was a 'sorry-ass' man for doing the things he did to hurt them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #58
60. Bill and Hillary saved the presidency. The voters of the '96 election did
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 07:23 PM by oasis
not have their vote overturned by of a bunch of right wing sanctimonious shit heads. His presidency withstood their challenge. For this, Americans should be eternally grateful to Bill, and to Hillary who supported the Constitution by refusing to give in.

There was much more at stake than their personal feelings. Many fail to realize this.

The Clinton's are remarkably unique individuals and should be commended for their service to our country.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LinuxInsurgent Donating Member (475 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:33 PM
Response to Reply #60
63. yes...on this I agree...
they withstood the witcchunt from the Right...and didn't let the Republicans push them into a Nixonite resignation.

For that, I tip my hat to them...about the only thing I admire about the Clintons...their backbone against the Right-Wing Machinery...something that is lacking in a lot of Democrats these days.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LinuxInsurgent Donating Member (475 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:31 PM
Response to Reply #55
62. yeah...but let's not let her off the hook
she knew Clinton was also guilty of infidelity...yeah, the whole scandal was a Republican witchhunt...I found it stupid...so the guy got a blowjob...so he perjured himself to protect the integrity of his family and marriage...big deal...most men would have done the same thing.

But...she knew what she had at home...didn't she say herself that "Bill was a hard dog to keep on the porch"?

A woman KNOWS what type of sexual freak (or lack thereof) she has at home.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #62
64. By standing by Bill, Hillary stood by the Constitution. Harpies were ready
to pounce on Bill if she threw in the towel. The unlawful impeachment would've been endorsed by the senate and the 1996 election overturned.

She had her priorities. The welfare of the nation was far more important than a domestic problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:44 PM
Response to Reply #64
66. I'm not following your logic of how a divorce......
........would have had any significant effect on the impeachment process.

I personally agree with Linux. Seems to me that the 'welfare of Hillary' was first and foremost in her mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:59 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. I'm sure you understand that any public condemnation of Bill by Hillary
Edited on Sat Feb-19-05 08:00 PM by oasis
would result in an immediate change in the polls which supported our then president, 65-70%. The politicians in congress would have acted accordingly.

As for what was in Hillary's heart when she deceided not to divorce one of the best president's ever, only she knows. Those who pretend to know may be displaying a bit more of their arrogance than their wisdom on the subject.

However, we *DO* know the results of her courage, the presidency was saved.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 08:05 PM
Response to Reply #67
68. Okay, I'll give on the issue of the polls........
......you could be right. But I don't profess to KNOW what's in Hillary's heart...I only draw my conclusions based on watching her actions over a period of many years.

She appears to me to be positioning herself in the center in order to run for the Presidency in 2008....that, and $1.50 ought to get you a cup of coffee in most restaurants.

Oh, and I want to rephrase my comments about Bill a bit. I think he's one of the best "politicians" who's ever held the office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 08:16 PM
Response to Reply #68
70. Politicians tend to be ambitious but many are public servants of the
first order.

With that, my friend, I have to withdraw from this discussion to tend to some of my domestic duties.

It's been nice talking with you. :hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LinuxInsurgent Donating Member (475 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:27 PM
Response to Reply #47
61. i agree with you.
She should have dumped his ass for being a cheater. And...I don't idolize Bill either...he's infinitely better than any Republican president in recent history...but Clinton also had his moments where he catered to the white racist mentality in this country to gain points with the white middle-class that fluctuates between parties. Basically, he's like his wife...political opportunists...the Elite of the Democratic Party. That doesn't mean I don't respect CERTAIN aspects of their governance and actions. But...all I'm asking is to have a balanced appraisal of the Clintons. They are not the messiah, people.

And to answer your question...she didn't leave him to keep her social status as the First Lady of an ex-President...and the political, economic, and social benefits that that relation gives.

She's a political opportunist...a liberal, Democratic socialite of the elite...I really don't understand why people have this messianic vision of Hillary as the messiah of the Left in America.

She's a rich, white woman, with power, status, and control of her affairs...and she uses them as they fit the situation...primarily for her benefit and her legacy. Now...if you ask me, is she better than some Republican socialite...yes, without a doubt. But that doesn't make Hillary Clinton the next great hurrah.

So...let's get a grip, Democrats. Let's work together to push Dean's faction of the Democratic Party and further the power of the grassroots liberals in the country...not sit on our computers defending Democratic elite socialites that spend their hours thinking how they can garner contributions from the same dirty corporations that fund the Republican party, while drinking Merlot in their Southern, Arkansas mansions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue to the bone Donating Member (765 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:40 PM
Response to Reply #61
65. What you say here:
<<she didn't leave him to keep her social status as the First Lady of an ex-President...and the political, economic, and social benefits that that relation gives. She's a political opportunist...a liberal, Democratic socialite of the elite...>>

Is what I've always believed and therefore have little actual respect for her. If she'd have dumped his sorry ass long ago, I'd have much more respect for the woman.

I'd personally feel a hell of a lot more comfortable seeing Dean carry our banner at every level.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LinuxInsurgent Donating Member (475 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 07:11 AM
Response to Reply #65
76. well...your miles ahead than some of the Hillary Taliban here....
First it was with Kerry (who at a certain point in his life, showed amazing courage and grassroots democracy...but who is an establishment Democrat too). Now, they're trying to get us all excited about Hillary Clinton running...and...you know...maybe it's just me, but I don't get all starry-eyed over the prospect that YET ANOTHER rich white person with connections to dirty campaign-finance corporations and with a history of flip-flopping with the political wind, is gonna run in 08. I'm a radical, progressive Leftist...and that nature compels me to look at candidates and size them up equally. I try to vote my conscience...but from time to time, I vote for the "lesser of two evils". So it will probably be with Hillary...but I'm not gonna go into the voting booth singing praises to her, like a lot on DU do.

Frankly, I think it's misplaced faith.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU GrovelBot  Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 04:43 PM
Response to Original message
33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##
==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ilsa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 05:39 PM
Response to Original message
38. NBC now says 50+ n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DS1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 05:46 PM
Response to Original message
40. Yeah, and the police pull me over because they peceive their power
is dwindling, not because I was speeding.
Or something :eyes:

Is there some water in Congress that makes all politicians equally fcuking dumb?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 06:49 PM
Response to Original message
51. and people wonder why I ...
... don't want Hillary anywhere near 2008. Begone, pandering one.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ckramer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 07:10 PM
Response to Original message
57. I believe the insurgents are pretty much ignoring the election results
The show goes on.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Disturbed Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 08:55 PM
Response to Reply #57
73. Hillary Clinton is just another politician..
that puts her finger into the political wind and positions herself accordingly. Bill Clinton has charisma and savy as a politician. The statement "one of the best president's ever" can be debated until doomsday. I feel that he didn't accomplish much and is still trying to be a hero. He wanted to be a great President but his mental illness got in the way. Now his wife is positioning herself as the next Pres. irregardless of how much she keeps saying that she is not. I hope like Hell she doesn't run because she will lose and Amerika will be a Fascist Police State for many years and the Amerika will be a 3rd rate nation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
skeeters Donating Member (35 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Feb-19-05 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
72. How Much
How much is Bush or the Pentagon paying her? It wasn't long ago I hoped she would run for President. Now, I want her to join Zell Miller and Lieberman in the Republican Party.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
spanone Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
78. THANK GOD that Dean will be giving OUR party a SPINE.
Edited on Sun Feb-20-05 08:35 AM by spanone
Jeezuz. We have got to oppose this foreign policy that bush* has imposed on our nation.
Does Hillary want to be Condoleeza Rice?????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Guckert Donating Member (946 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Feb-20-05 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
82. I smell Freedom, don't you ???? or is it Liberty?? i can't tell....
:puke: :puke:
:puke:
:puke:
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 Apr 20th 2014, 09:38 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News 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