Sen. Clinton Says Iraq Insurgents Failing

[Gyre]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4812578,00.html

"..BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday a string of attacks killing more than 50 Iraqis in two days were failed attempts to sow sectarian strife and destabilize the country.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., were part of a five-member congressional delegation that met with U.S. officials and members of Iraq's interim government.

Both Clinton and McCain have been strident critics of the Pentagon's planning and management of the war in Iraq. But Clinton said Saturday that Sunni Muslim insurgents were failing in their efforts to destabilize Iraq through sectarian violence.

Her comments came as numerous suicide bombings and other insurgent attacks across Iraq killed dozens of people, Iraqi officials said, as Shiite Muslim worshippers celebrated their holiest day of the year. A U.S. soldier was among those killed in the attacks, the military said.

On Friday, insurgents staged five attacks killing at least 36 people and Shiites blamed radical Sunni Muslim insurgents for attacking them in a string of bombings, shootings and kidnappings."

IMHO this is another instance of H. Clinton acting as Joe Liberman's proxy by mouthing lies advanced by the administration. The facts on the ground in Iraq are clearly opposite to how she's spinning them. Maybe she's got some kind of "deal" with the repubes so they won't steal the election quite as obliquely next time if she agrees to be their pet monkey for a few years.

Gyre

[Cooley Hurd]

2. 50 killed doesn't sound like a "failure" on the insurgent's part...

Sounds like she's getting her talking points from General Myers...:eyes:

[hector459]

47. I think it is irresponsible to make statements like this. Causes

insurgents to increase actions just to prove a point.

[Cooley Hurd]

50. Kinda like saying "Bring it on..."

:(:thumbsdown:

[still_one]

3. what do you expect from someone who voted for the war

[Cha]

42. NOt a damn

fucking thing!

[thebigidea]

4. so she's arguing that Iraq is stable?

[wyldwolf]

7. where on earth did you draw that conclusion?

She's arguing that the insurgents are failing - which in no way equates to Iraq being stable.

[thebigidea]

19. so if they're failing to destabilize Iraq as she says, it implies...

... Iraq is stable. Because if it wasn't stable, wouldn't that mean the insurgents aren't failing?

[wyldwolf]

22. Iraq is already unstable - but certainly less so than a year ago

What she is arguing is the insurgency will ultimately fail and that the continued insurgency is failing to undermine what will be an eventual reality - a stable Iraq either through the US or a new (unfortunately) fundamentalist government.

Case in point - the election had much bigger turnout than expected with less insurgency hindrance than expected. No, I don't believe the election was a sham because the results were not what Bush was hoping for.

[thebigidea]

25. the attacks have increased in frequency and skill, how do you figure?

" with less insurgency hindrance than expected."

300 attacks.

how many were expected, and how many would've been too many?

[wyldwolf]

27. I certainly can't answer those questions, but...

...the elections happened and Shiite and Kurdish leaders have already agreed that they must reach out to prominent Sunnis to participate in the government.

That is progess- and it promotes sectarian harmony, not strife.

So, going on what Clinton said, the attacks haven't destablized and contributed to sectarian strife.

[thebigidea]

28. well, I won't bother arguing further if you can't even define terms

good luck promoting this great progress, hopefully the egg on the face won't taste as bad as 'mission accomplished'

[wyldwolf]

32. I believe the terms have been defined

"sectarian strife" means what it means.

"Stable" and "destable" both mean what they mean.

No one has said that Iraq is stable now. But there is no evidence the insurgents have made it less stable. However, I've shown evidence of the opposite.

The government is forming. Factions are reaching out to each other.

[RapidCreek]

62. If the insurgents aren't making Iraq unstable then who is?

Iraqi freedom fighters? Iraqi partisons? Iraqi resistance?

Sectarian strife means what it means, you say? Where not the violent actions over the election secterian strife? I can't think of anything more sectarian.

Ah crap, I just gotta say these three sentences here just slay me:

No one has said that Iraq is stable now. But there is no evidence the insurgents have made it less stable. However, I've shown evidence of the opposite. The government is forming.

Now let's look at the above logically...let's break it down.

1. No one has said that Iraq is stable now.

Translation: Iraq is not stable.

2. But there is no evidence the insurgents have made it less stable.

Translation: Even though we know that "insurgents" murder people. Murdered people are not a measurement of instability, thus the insurgents cause no instability....even if they murder more people.

3. However, I've shown evidence of the opposite.

Translation: The murder of Iraqi's is having a positive effect on the formation of a government. The survivers are inspired to "move forward".

What an interesting way of expressing yourself, you have.

Is "is" is? Or "is" not is. That's the question.

RC

[wyldwolf]

63. No one has said what you are claiming

If the insurgents aren't making Iraq unstable then who is?

Who has said the insurgents weren't making Iraq unstable? All I've said is that despite the insurgents, iraq is becoming more stable.

Sectarian strife means what it means, you say? Where not the violent actions over the election secterian strife? I can't think of anything more sectarian.

You mean the subdued, less than expected violence that did nothing to prevent the elections - elections that have now resulted in overtures of sectarian harmony?

Ah crap, I just gotta say these three sentences here just slay me:

Now let's look at the above logically...let's break it down.

1. No one has said that Iraq is stable now.

Translation: Iraq is not stable.

Again, no one has said it is stable - but it is more stable than it has been since the insurgency started.

2. But there is no evidence the insurgents have made it less stable.

Translation: Even though we know that "insurgents" murder people. Murdered people are not a measurement of instability, thus the insurgents cause no instability....even if they murder more people.

Again, your entire point here is based on the black/white either/or contention that Iraq is either stable or not stable. You apparently can't see that there can be many levels of stability and non-stability and that the success of the elections moved Iraq towards a more stable position.

3. However, I've shown evidence of the opposite.

Translation: The murder of Iraqi's is having a positive effect on the formation of a government. The survivers are inspired to "move forward".

Absurd. Despite the insurgency, Iraq is becoming more stable. You can use all the emotionally charged rhetoric that you like, but the fact remains that Iraq's elections have moved the country to a more stable place.

What an interesting way of expressing yourself, you have.

Is "is" is? Or "is" not is. That's the question.

Or the strange approach you have: It's either black or white, this or that, what the hell is a nuance, anyway?

[RapidCreek]

89. Where do you get your information?

Again, no one has said it is stable - but it is more stable than it has been since the insurgency started.

You say it is "more stable". What is your measure of stability? When exactly did the insurgency start?


You mean the subdued, less than expected violence that did nothing to prevent the elections - elections that have now resulted in overtures of sectarian harmony?

"Subdued"? According to whome? Condoleeza Rice or the people that were killed? I find it rather odd that you should bring up Sectarian violence in the first place....Given Iraq's history of relative sectarian harmony....

"Less than expected"? What level of violence, exactly, was expected?

Absurd. Despite the insurgency, Iraq is becoming more stable. You can use all the emotionally charged rhetoric that you like, but the fact remains that Iraq's elections have moved the country to a more stable place.

Again...Iraq is becomming more stable? According to whome? Murder and death is murder and death. Sorry if reality strikes you as emotionally charged. You can write all the rhetorically vague, self important, detatched, arm chair commentator Ricisms you like...spewing them won't change reality, however. You say Iraqs elections have moved the country to a more stable place? Again, according to whome? An election is an election....it isn't stability. I won't even remark on the validity of the elections...or lack thereof...because that has been addressed ad nauseum.

Your Approach: "Your highness and most majestic excellency, we have found the most absolutely exquisite tapestries that exceed all your specifications. We have tailored them to fit you exactly. What is more, they are magical. Only those who believe in you can see them; scoundrels and enemies can not. If you think their beauty is fitting, you can put them on and wear a ready-made loyalty-test wherever you go."

My Approach: "The emporer is butt-assed naked"

You prefer nuance...I prefer truth.

RC

[wyldwolf]

94. news, blogs, people I know personally in the media

...as compared to your info source - your wishful thinking.

See, you're counting on the insurgency succeeding.

You want the Iraq war to fail.

Again...Iraq is becomming more stable? According to whome? Murder and death is murder and death. Sorry if reality strikes you as emotionally charged.

More "black/white either/or" emotionally charged rhetoric.

Hey a cancer is a cancer is a cancer, right? Even it it is responding to treatment and shrinking (getting better - more stable), it's still a cancer so we shouldn't recognize it's getting better.

If the clouds parted tomorrow, all fighting stopped, and a pure democracy emerged, you'd still be screaming that it's unstable. Oh, it would just HAVE to be!

It was widely reported that attacks were very scarce on election day.

It has been widely reported that an olive branch has been extended between the different sects in Iraq.

I prefer nuance. I also prefer truth. You prefer a war torn Iraq so you can have the pleasure of wagging your finger at Bush and saying, "I told you so."

[RapidCreek]

100. I'm counting on the insurgency succeeding?

My, how interesting. I noticed that you neglected to answer the question I asked about when exactly the "insurgency" began. You also neglected to elucidate on what exactly an "insurgent" is.

I'll give you a little help. Arabs started fighting Americans and blowing each other up in Iraq after Americans invaded and occupied Iraq...allegedly to rid it of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. They continue to fight US influence of any and all kinds in their homeland to this day. Much like I or any other red blooded American would do if the shoe were on the other foot. They became "insurgents" when your friends in the media were ordered by your friends in the White house to refer to them as such. Whether these "insurgents" are right or wrong in their motivations is none of my business...what is my business is the use of our military as a mercenary force. One which is responsible for the death of many many many innocent people.

In a civilized "Christian" society "War" IS failure...when other options exist....which of course many did. You see, before the "war" as you like to call it, there was little, if any "sectarian violence". Your war brought it on....and the occupation will continue to bring it on. To suggest otherwise is the suggestion of a moron. You might care to educate yourself a bit on the history of sectarian strife in Iraq before you begin making your grand pronouncements. Suffice it to say, it was nearly non-existent. While the preceding rational backing up the failure of this "war" falls under the "nuanced" heading you seem to identify with more often than not...there is another much more blatant reason that it is a failure. The invasion was undertaken on the pretense that our military was going to Iraq to rid the country of weapons of mass destruction. Since none existed then or now...the invasion was a failure the day that it began. Worse than being a failure it was and is, a criminal venture. Of course I recognize that you and other lovers of commercially motivated war have attempted to usurp the professed reasons for the invasion with rewritten history designed to help you save face, indeed, to paint yourselves as some sort of well meaning promoters of freedom and Democracy...but anyone with a a third grade intellect recognizes it for what it is.

The "war" is a failure...The question remains, however...how much more failure we as a nation will tolerate while folks such as yourself attempt to redeem themselves from the ignorance which rules them or to hide their appetite to dominate and steal from people in another land.

I prefer a war torn Iraq? Quite the contrary. None the less, it is rather an odd conclusion for one to arrive at who is such a cheerleader for the "war" himself. If Iraq were not war torn, its society downtrodden and desperate...your rather arrogant friends in the White house/US Chamber of Commerce wouldn't enjoy near as much freedom to set up shop under the guise of "bringing about Democracy". Without a war torn Iraq, those who attempt to evade paying taxes couldn't stuff their pockets full of my tax dollar rebuilding that which my tax dollar also destroyed. Nor would they reap the profits of "privatizing" that which, up until the war, they couldn't lay their hands on so easily.

You seem really to love writing "it has been widely reported". Widely reported by who? Fox News? CNN? NBC? Now if I remember correctly these outfits aided and abetted The White house in the perpetration of the very lies which led to your failed "war" in the first place. When did these tools of propaganda become the font of virtue? Was I asleep when someone reenacted the Fairness Doctrine?

What I'd do if the clouds parted tomorrow, all fighting stopped and a pure Democracy emerged is a non-issue. Because the clouds won't part tomorrow, the fighting won't stop and a "pure Democracy" won't emerge....no matter how long you and those like you suggest that it will. History has proved that...but history is something those in your camp like to ignore...Israel is an ersatz Democracy, Israel has elections and Israel is far from stable. Interestingly our country is also financing the occupation of Israel, to the tune of 4 billion a year. How long have we been paying for the Israeli occupation? How much longer will we be paying for it? Do you suppose that things will be different in Iraq? How much has it cost so far? How much more has Bush asked for? For how many more years will I, my children and their children have to pay to protect your friends in this little adventure in capitalistic global domination, under the guise of liberation? 40? 50? 100?

I don't need to wag my finger at Bush and say I told you so. Waving a finger at Bush and saying I told you so would be rather a waste of time...because what I'd be telling Bush, would be nothing he didn't know in 1990...which are the same things I knew, then and now. The difference between me and Bush and you evidently is principal. Knowing what I knew then and now, I wouldn't have engaged in the invasion in the first place. You see I was then and am now, well aware of the costs in lives, reputation and money of such a venture...So is and was Bush and his supporters, on both sides of the isle. The difference is, is that I care.

Oh and as to where I get my information....I get it from my Nephew who is serving as an Army first lieutenant in the country of Iraq. I don't get my information from those who "widely report".

Unnecessary death is not nuanced...it's real black and white if you have anything resembling a conscience or its your life or your families life on the line...but it isn't, is it...not yours or your families...your "nuanced" rational for war doesn't really effect you personally. You see, we ain't talking about cancer cells here....we're talking about human beings. I wonder when, if ever, this "Christian" country of ours will start behaving as Christ would. I won't hold my breath.

RC

[wyldwolf]

101. yes you are

...and despite your novella above, the fact remains that you're banking on the insurgency succeeding. You think everything you have is riding on it.

But it isn't. We've been down that road.

Embarassing Bush is more important to you still than the welfare of Iraq, Democracy there, and the safety or our soldiers.


Now is the time to hope for the best and recognize when things go well for the sake of our soldiers and the citizens of Iraq.

Your "demands" to define what an insurgent is and when it began is a mere sideshow to distract from the point.

You know exactly what the insurgency is and what the word means in context to this thread and what Hillary said.

Things are getting better in Iraq. Period.

War is not always failure as you've stated - unless you'd rather see a Nazi flag flying at your public schools.

And while the reasons for THIS war were bogus, and it's success by the White House overstated, it HAS been successful. (oops! another nuance. I guess to you things are either successful or they're not.)

[RapidCreek]

103. I think everything I have is riding on what?

What an idiotic statement. What I have is a Nephew riding around in a Humvee in Iraq....when he should be at home working on his masters degree and raising his kids. How would some pissed off Arab killing him be a benefit to me?

What would be a benefit to me is if he was never sent there in the first place or at the very least brought home TODAY. What would be a benefit to me would be if he were here working on shoring up the faltering Democracy in his own country....not doing mercenary work for Bush's sponsors in Iraq.

Now is not the time to 'hope'. Now is the time to stop with the happy horse shit and take to task those who brought this shit storm down upon us. Unfortunately the Polly Anna mentality of many in this country will allow them to continue in their larceny....and aid and abet their commitment of the same.

My demands for you to define the buzzwords you toss about is hardly a distraction....quite the contrary....it is the meat of the issue. Spewing forth a bunch of cute little buzzwords you ape from those "who report widely" hardly an argument makes. Your arguments are hollow because the words you use to make them are hollow.

Embarrassing Bush is a non-issue...Bush cannot be embarrassed, first because he is quite obviously a sociopath, second, because of people like yourself....His cheer leaders.

One does not show concern for the Iraqi people by killing over 100 thousand innocents. One does not show concern for Iraqis by bringing war to their country....or by occupying it and robbing it blind.

I did not state that war is always a failure....I said war is a failure when other options exist. Quite a few options did exist.
Voicing your Republican talking points is predictable and no less inane than it ever is or was. Nazi Germany attacked us....as did the Japanese...no option existed. We were defending ourselves. The Arabian Nations are not Europe, Saddam Hussein wouldn't be a pimple on Hitlers ass and Iraq didn't attack us. Try your Rush Limbaugh shit on someone else.

Yes...I suppose your war has been "successful" in many ways. It's succeeded in killing at least 100 thousand innocent Iraqis, killing 1426 US soldiers, killing 86 British soldiers and 86 soldiers of other nationalities. It's succeeded in maiming how many, I can only wonder, Iraqi innocents and at least 10740 US troops. It's succeeded in totally destroying the finest Arabian infrastructure in existence. It's succeeded in bringing the most highly educated, professional Arabian populace to it's knees. It's succeeded in bringing about the demise of the last creepy weasel piece of shit we put in power when he refused to play our game anymore and will no doubt succeed in installing a new more cooperative one in his place. It's succeeded, by Bush's own proud pronouncements in bringing terroriss from the world over to Iraq...terrorists who the Iraqi citizenry must suffer, probably forever. It's succeeded in bringing "sectarian strife" to a country where little if any previously existed. It's succeeded in implanting an American Corporatocracy and in requisitioning control of Iraq's national resources. Oh, and how could I forget....for all this the Iraqi's get to vote in an incomplete election in an occupied country. Yep that's pretty successful.....and for this success to continue we can look forward to more of the same. Sounds wonderful.


RC

[wyldwolf]

104. politically...

... you feel the Iraq war is the thing that will eventually hang Bush and put Democrats back in power. Perhaps it will.

But you're hoping for it. You're banking on it to the point you want to see it fail.

[gulfcoastliberal]

90. Of course no one mentions the Kurds vs Turkey & Kirkuk

I'd argue the election has destabilized that particular issue and increased tensions.

[RapidCreek]

97. Yes, well you are one of those folks who uses logic.

RC

[wyldwolf]

98. you'd argue based on what?

A gut feeling?

[gulfcoastliberal]

109. Based on heated rhetoric coming from Ankara

Iraq: Kurdish Victory In Kirkuk Raises Ethnic Tensions

Iraqi Kurds have won a majority of seats on the provincial council for the northern region that includes the tense, ethnically diverse city of Kirkuk. The oil-rich area is home to Kurds, to Turkomans, and to several hundred thousand Arabs settled in the north of Iraq by Saddam Hussein. In the runup to the local vote, the rival ethnic groups fought bitterly over whether displaced Kurds returning to Kirkuk would be allowed to cast their ballots, and all sides threatened boycotts to press their points. Now, as the dust settles, can Kirkuk's different groups put their disputes behind them?

snip

Ankara has often said it is ready to intervene in northern Iraq to protect the rights of the Turkomans and to assure that Kirkuk does not become the Iraqi Kurds' capital.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2005/02/bc7bd13a-1590-400f-93e3-e813a7f62a25.html

But the DLC is a big fan of "muscular" foreign policy, so what's good for PNAC is good for Turkey, right?

[RapidCreek]

58. Gosh that's logical....goddamn egg headed lefty liberal elitist.

It's folks like you who make it difficult to call oneself a moderate.

RC

[wyldwolf]

5. hmmm... no fan of the war, but ...

..I don't want to see things go to shit (well, any worse than they already are) in Iraq.

The facts on the ground in Iraq are clearly opposite to how she's spinning them.

Are you privy to "facts on the ground" that we're not? In any armed conflict, there are losses on both sides. If we compare the insurgents' kills to ours, we are clearly winning.

Or, as Hillary put it, the insurgents are clearly failing at attempts to sow sectarian strife.

[sabbat hunter]

6. a misrepresentation

of what sen clinton is saying. what she is saying is that DESPITE the continued attacks, some sembalance of democracy is advancing. that the Iraqis are hopeful of the future.


david

[wyldwolf]

8. Exactly. Those on the left and right attack Hillary with such...

..vitriol - using (IMO) intentional misrepresentations.

[still_one]

9. maybe it is because she voted for the war in iraq

for the patriot act which takes away our civil liberties

look at the other votes she also did, and maybe you will understand, why there is such vitriol

It is time for democrats to take their party back

[wyldwolf]

12. perhaps you have a misinterpretation of a few things

1. The Democrats have their party. Hillary is a Democrat and was one before your purity tests were created.

2. Intentional misrepresentations are NEVER ok.

3. Tell me who you feel is a "real" democrat and I'll give you facts on him/her that will either make you hair stand up or have you spinning the rest of the day.

[still_one]

53. really, when she was working for Goldwater also

as far as my purity tests go I never left the party, they left me

you think there is a difference, fine, but bush could have never gone into iraq if it wasn't because of democrats

I have been a life long democrat for over thirty years, and if you think I am the only one who is pissed by what these democrats have done by voting for the patriot act, voting for bad appointments, and essentially giving bush everything he wanted.

Well we are screwed now, and I believe it will be years before we ever get back control.

[wyldwolf]

67. Like I said

Tell me who you feel is a "real" democrat and I'll give you facts on him/her that will either make you hair stand up or have you spinning the rest of the day.

or avoiding the question.

Let's put your purity tests to the test.

[IndianaGreen]

55. Support for the war makes Hillary an enabler of war crimes

and she should be condemned just as we condemned those Germans that aided and abetted the Nazis.

This is not a question of purity, it is only a question of whether Hillary has become a war criminal.

[wyldwolf]

65. No, the question was whether what Hillary said made her a democrat or not

You must have just jumped into this thread without reading the other posts.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

79. This is why so many Dems would go 3rd party with Hillary on the ballot.

Since she wasn't running in 2004 she was under no obligation of "political expediency" on the Iraq vote and had the opportunity to make the right decision and put the brakes on the madness that is bankrupting the US and causing so much misery in the region. Instead, from her perch of relative respect in the Senate, she gave her imprimatur to what everyone knew was a disastrous invasion in the making, even trying to out-hawk Bush at times, back when Senate approval was not a sure thing.

I know quite a few Dems who've voted straight Dem for 20-30 years, and they'd bolt to a 3rd party if Hillary were on the ballot. To vote Democratic, it has to mean something when the vote is cast, and Hillary is merely a neocon reactionary running as a Dem. We need to draft Barbara Boxer to put a stop to all this bandwagon idiocy being pushed by the MSM, before it's too late and we go down to defeat again.

[wyldwolf]

93. nah. Empty threat

I've heard it in the past 5 presidential cycles. Especially last year.

But Kerry got more dem votes than anyone in history.

If Hillary is on the ticket, there will be no noticeable increase in third party voting.

[wyldwolf]

64. Like I said

Tell me who you feel is a "real" democrat and I'll give you facts on him/her that will either make you hair stand up or have you spinning the rest of the day.

or avoiding the question.

Let's put your purity tests to the test.

[me b zola]

74. Supporting faith based initiatives would tell us who is NOT

a Democrat.

I will vote Green in '08 if we nominate a repub lite.

[wyldwolf]

76. Really?

Al Gore proposed almost identical faith based initiatives in his 2000 presidential run.

In 2003, Howard Dean was acceptng of them.

So, Repub lite Gore and Dean fail your test.

But you're voting Green anyway....

[me b zola]

77. Hello. My name is Zola

..and I represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party.

I am unaware of either Gore or Dean lending support to undermining our Constitution by merging church & State. This, of course, does not mean that I either believe nor disbelieve your assertion. It seems more likely, though, that Dean & possibly Gore would have spoken in favor of community charitable work towards assisting those in need. It is quite a different beast, however, to give tax dollars to tax exempt entities in the private sector to provide (or give the appearance of providing) a safety net for our citizens when they are most vulnerable.

The push by the pubs towards faith based initiatives is seeking two outcomes: 1)to remove the safety net provided by the government to it's citizens who are most vulnerable. This has been a thorn in the side of the "right" since FDR. 2)To funnel big $$ to the groups who support repubs & deliver a substantial voting block.May I dare suggest illegal campaign donations to one party directly from the tax payers?

BTW, I am a lifelong Catholic Dem.

[wyldwolf]

78. So let's just suppose...

I'm correct in saying Gore and Dean supported Faith Based initiatives (Gore's plan almost identical to Bush's, Dean's support of Bush's plan provided it did not descriminate), then are Gore and Dean on your non-pure list and are now no longer Democrats?

(Zola - don't fool yourself - you're don't represent any "wing" of the democratic party.)

[me b zola]

88. I have written to Chairman Dean and asked for clarification

In the meantime let me address your more personal ASSumptions.
I do not ever fool myself.But only a fool would attempt to push the republican agenda on people on a Democratic blog.
Furthermore, I would thank you for refraining from telling me what I represent or don't represent.This tactic has been successful for the neocons in telling us what we are or are not, what we believe in or what we don't believe in.

[wyldwolf]

92. in other words

... we'll be waiting forever for your "written clarification."

But did you write Al Gore, too?

only a fool would attempt to push the republican agenda on people on a Democratic blog.

Who's pushing a republican agenda? And which republican agenda?

No, you do not represent the any wing of the democratic party.

[me b zola]

105. No, WE won't be waiting for anything.

You made an ASSertion, but did not provide a link to substantiate your claim. The onus was not on me to provide anything to you.

There was a wonderful thread today discussing the major divide in the Democratic party, and it would be a great place to direct you to if you were interested in understanding the differing ideologies within the party that has manifested itself in this, among many, threads. However you clearly have no desire for discussion on any issue, since you insist on being rude where it been completely uncalled for.

Your tagline implies that you desire a strong Democratic party that can win. I suggest that your lack of social skills may be a hindrance to that end.

This is where you get off.:hi:

[wyldwolf]

106. allow me to provide just a couple of links... but first

... to comment:

No, WE won't be waiting for anything. You made an ASSertion, but did not provide a link to substantiate your claim. The onus was not on me to provide anything to you.

But you did state, "I have written to Chairman Dean and asked for clarification." A reasonable assumption would be that Dean would provide clarification and you would report back to make prove your point.

But that didn't happen.

There was a wonderful thread today discussing the major divide in the Democratic party, and it would be a great place to direct you to if you were interested in understanding the differing ideologies within the party that has manifested itself in this, among many, threads. However you clearly have no desire for discussion on any issue, since you insist on being rude where it been completely uncalled for.

I can assure you I know far more about the "major divide" (actually non-existent) in the Dem party than you could ever imagine.

And all personal attacks directed at me by you aside, you are clearly avoiding the point of this discussion. So here are a few things to keep you spinning all day.

this is where YOU get off.:hi:

No, I've just gotten on!

Al Gore Proposed almost identical faith-based initiative as Bush in his 2000 campaign

In a speech replete with references to belief in god and the value of religion, Vice President Albert Gore proposed earlier this week what he termed a "New Partnership" between government and faith-based groups. Gore told a friendly audience at a Salvation Army drug rehabilitation center in Atlanta, Ga. that if elected president, "the voices of faith-based organizations will be integral to the policies set forth in my administration."

Though not mentioning it by name, Gore praised the controversial amendment by Sen. John Ashcroft which became part of a sweeping 1996 welfare reform law by inserting a Charitable Choice clause. The measure permits states to subsidize the resources of churches and other religious groups in providing social services. "They can do so with public funds -- and without having to alter the religious character that is so often the key to their effectiveness," declared Gore.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/church9.htm

Dean agrees with Bush's Faith based initiative provided they don't discriminate

Governor Howard Dean (November 20, 2003)

What are your perceptions of President Bush’s faith-based Initiatives?

I think the president may have meant well, but I think unfortunately what happened was that he chose some faiths over others. It's much easier to get money if you are perhaps a faith that's a little closer to the president's, but I can't think of too many organizations that are—Jewish organizations that have received this money. There's no clear line with the faith-based initiatives in terms of discrimination in hiring or discrimination from those who take advantage of the federal money. Now that federal tax money was paid by people of every religion, so I don't think it should be used to proselytize people of particular religious groups. Or proselytize for particular religious groups. So I think I wouldn't want to discard the faith-based initiative in their entirety but I think a bright line has to be drawn that if an agency or if an organization gets money, they cannot discriminate in their hiring by religion, sexual orientation, or any other category. And they cannot discriminate in terms of those they help. Nor can they use that money to proselytize.

http://www.interfaithalliance.org/site/pp.asp?c=8dJIIWMCE&b=120965

Interesting that Gore endorsed Dean. They do tend to agree on many things!

[still_one]

11. the best gift to the republicans would be to nominate clinton in 08

[wyldwolf]

13. perhaps- but intentional misrepresentations are NEVER ok.

[arewenotdemo]

10. I agree. And there's no way I'm pulling a lever or punching a hole for

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the future.

Disgusting.

Now to ditch this Kerry avatar...

[Mark E. Smith]

14. She's Right...

...the collapse of the insurgency IS only a matter of time. The only question now is whether it will be US troops that'll administer the demise, or some very differently oriented folks from Iran.

What is unfortunate is that in the long run the real problem for the United States is not the insurgents, but the very real possibility of Iraq becoming an Iranian suzerainty. After all, a majority of the voters in Iraq just voted to empower a Iranian born Shi'ite Grand Ayatollah, one that seems to understand the need to keep a moderate face on his political aspirations for as long as US troops are around. What happens afterwards is anybody's guess.

That is the real and very dangerous consequence of Bush's Iraq War blunder. The insurgency is fast becoming irrelevant.

[JHBowden]

16. Prescient words.

:beer:

[Igotsunshine]

29. That's the real lasting danger

Sooner or later, the average Iraqi will tire of the insurgency and work towards its defeat. However, over time, Iran will spread its evil influence in the Iraqi heartland to the detriment of the west. That is the real tragedy of this GodAwful war. Our soldiers will have died for nothing. Worse, their deaths will be but a monument to the stupidity of this war.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

81. I wish I could agree with you, but this is wishful thinking.

"Sooner or later, the average Iraqi will tire of the insurgency and work towards its defeat."

That's not going to happen. In fact, signs are that the recent election might actually be strengthening the insurgency since now the vast majority of Shiites (who at best tolerated the US presence before) are now asking why in the world we're there. As long as US troops are on Iraqi soil, the insurgency will continue to branch out and gain momentum, and there's a good chance that all those Iraqi troops, National Guard, and police that we're training are soon going to turn their weapons against us. Especially if the Bushies adopt a policy of wanting to place permanent bases in Iraq, that will provoke continuing rage. Iraqis reacted violently to the British in the 1920's, the same is going on currently as well.

[still_one]

54. it already has, and soon we will be in a civil war

between the Sunnis and the Shia

[Benhurst]

15. The insurgents "failing"? Just what you would expect from someone who is

sleeping with Poppy's new best friend.

[wyldwolf]

17. Show us a connection between your irrelevant comment about Bill Clinton..

which is unproven, of course, and the insurgency succeeding- which it isn't.

[Benhurst]

52. The traveling Bill and Poppy show is a matter of public record.

The opinion of most freepers to the contrary, I have never thought Hillary was a lesbian or about to kick Bill out of the house at a moment's notice, and have assumed she and her husband have a relatively normal relationship. From my limited experience, people who sleep together usually have considerable influence one upon the other. The spectacle of Bill touring with Poppy, distasteful as it may be, is less so than that of Senator Clinton's mouthing the Bush Crime Family's party line on Iraq, although one can be seen as logically following the other.

More of our troops were killed in January of this year than were the year before, which belies what the junior senator from New York is saying. At this very moment, the killing continues unabated.

As for the "insurgents" so conveniently lumped together in one group by the administration, they are a mixed bag consisting of followers of the old regime, Islamic fundamentalists, and what-- if they were on our side-- would be called freedom fighters, people who want an occupying foreign force driven from their land.

The killing is regrettable, whether done by Iraqis or Americans; but none of this would be going on if Bush and his gang of war criminals, enabled by Democrats such as Mrs. Clinton, had not put our troops in harms way in the first place.

We have no right to Iraq's oil and no right to the Iraqi territory upon which we are building 14 "permanent" military bases.

The longer we stay, the worse it is going to get for our people and theirs.

Our troops should never have been sent to Iraq in the first place. They should be brought home now, no matter what the Bush Crime Family and their Democratic enablers say. Enough have died already in Mr. Bush's illegal and immoral war.

[wyldwolf]

69. despite your off topic rant

... you have still provided no evidence Clinton and Bush Sr. are now best friends - which was the point you made.

[Benhurst]

73. As if anyone other than the two men themselves knows or cares.

Mr. Clinton's choice to parade around with the likes of G.H.W.Bush in public is damning enough.

[wyldwolf]

75. well, obviously you do

because you made an effort to point it out twice.

And remember - this "parading around" is for a good cause.

But don't let your hatred stand in the wayof that!

[Mark E. Smith]

18. Whew!

Why would somebody be so angry over Sen Clinton's comment that the insurgency is failing? They are, and people who blow up women and children deserve as wretched a fate as possible .

The bad news here is that the Iraqis just empowered an Iranian born Grand Ayatollah who will bring the country under the heel of his fatherland just as soon as he can cozen the US military out of the area.

The insurgents are a muderous bunch that deserve what they have coming to them. But there are two losers here, and the real consequences of Bush's Iraqi blunder are far more dangerous, both to us and the world.

[thebigidea]

20. people who blow up women and children?

haven't both sides done that to the tune of thousands each?

[bread_and_roses]

45. The people blowing up women and children include US troops

And everytime one of our so-called Representatives speaks about this illegal occupation without talking about THAT they collude in and condone war crimes and crimes against humanity.

And that includes Clinton.

[Benhurst]

61. Amen. NT

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

83. This is what happens when a country is invaded from the outside.

"The insurgents are a muderous bunch that deserve what they have coming to them."

Yes they are a murderous bunch, and that's because war is unrelentingly brutal, which is why you don't start one unless you absolutely cannot avoid it. Do you honestly think that the American guerrilla resistance against the British (George Washington was essentially the first guerrilla warrior general), Spanish guerrilla resistance against Napoleon, or the French Resistance against the Nazis were "clean and sanitary"? They were all extremely bloody, not too different from what's happening in Iraq right now, and lots of the same sorts of things-- killing of perceived collaborators, destabilization of institutions associated with the outside power-- took place.

That doesn't necessarily make it right, but in war, that's how things proceed. We Americans have been, outside of the War of 1812 and until the 9/11 attacks, generally blessed to never have to face an outside invasion of our own country, which has left us blissfully innocent of the harsh realities that war entails.

[merh]

21. Senator Clinton - would you please peel your lips from the weed's

ass? And while you are at it, would you please remember that you were elected to serve not to recite the lies of the admin?

[wyldwolf]

23. where is the lie in what she has said?

[merh]

24. I suppose it is a matter of degree, isn't it.

If the insurgents had been stopped before they killed 50, then they would have been "failed attempts".

If the insurgents were trying to kill 100 and only killed 50, I suppose they could have been failed attempts.

I don't know, since the attacks were not prevented, it seems that they were successful and I betcha that they have created "sectarian strife" and added to the destablized status of Iraq.

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Saturday a string of attacks killing more than 50 Iraqis in two days were failed attempts to sow sectarian strife and destabilize the country."

You tell me where she told the truth!

[wyldwolf]

26. Actually, it isn't

If the insurgents had been stopped before they killed 50, then they would have been "failed attempts".

They would have been failed attempts to kill 50 people. However, what Clinton said was they were failed attempts to sow sectarian strife and destabilize the country. Any evidence that the insurgents attacks have sown sectarian strife and destabilized the country (beyond the point it already is, of course)?

The truth she told was this: Despite the attacks, the new government is continuing to form. For example - Friday Shiite and Kurdish leaders agreed to reach out to prominent Sunnis to participate in the government.

That is progress and a move toward increasing stability and the opposite of sectarian strife.

[merh]

38. How silly of me to think that 8 suicide bombings that killed 50 or

so Iraqis might effectively continue the efforts of the insurgents to "sow sectarian strife" and destabilize the country. Gee, they had elections after all and Kurds and Shiites agreed to reach out to Sunnis. BTW, did the Sunnis agree to reach back?

[wyldwolf]

41. well, void of any proof to the contrary

... things are moving in a positive direction despite the suicide bombings.

Doesn't matter if the Sunnis agreed to reach back at this point. For the sake of this discussion, the fact that such an olive branch was extended shows that the opposite of sectarian strife is occurring despite the best efforts of the insurgents.

Successful elections (even if some will say semi-successful) where different factions are extending hands to each other is proof positive that the insurgency is failing.

[still_one]

56. you have any idea about the history of the middle east

do you know what happened to great britian in Iraq?

this is even worse. Not only are the Turks pissed about the Kurds, the Suni(sic) are pissed at the Shia, and our boy didn't win. Incidently, our buddy Al Sadr has a role in this government, and that isn't good for us

[wyldwolf]

66. uh... yeah

My question to you is:

Do you WANT what happened to Britain in Iraq to happen to the US?

I think the answer is yes. You're hedging your bets on the worse happening.

I'd like to see Bush embarrassed - disgraced - too, but not enough to hope things don't go well and to argue that they won't go well despite evidence that things are moving in a more stabilized direction,

[Igotsunshine]

30. Facts are pesky things.

Senator Clinton merely stated the obvious. I have never known her to "recite the lies of the admin". Not now, not ever.

[wyldwolf]

33. welcome to DU!

As you can see, you can't escape irrational clinton hatred anywhere!

[Igotsunshine]

36. Thanks, wyldwolf. Why oh why can't they see the light?

Eight more years of Clintonomics would make us the majority party for the next two generations. Our country was never better off than when we had a Clinton in the WH. I can't wait for the '08 election!!

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

85. You're sadly mistaken

The first Clinton maybe (if the 22nd Amendment were repealed). But Hillary would fill the GOP's war chest in little more than a week, and send millions of Dems into the arms of a third party. That's spelled "D-I-S-A-S-T-E-R." As I've said before, it's time to draft Barbara Boxer before we wind up in serious trouble from Hillary's bull-in-the-china-shop effect on the Democratic Party and our platform.

[wyldwolf]

95. empty threat

Would never happen - especially when she's polling ahead of every other dem right now.

[no name no slogan]

125. That depends on whether you were the trickler, or the trickle-ee

Actually, the country was best-off, as a whole, during the LBJ Administration as far as wages/earnings go.

Most Americans didn't do much better under Clinton than they did under Reagan/Bush. In fact, the gap between the richest and poorest grew more under Clinton than during Reagan/Bush.

Clinton did little to reverse the Greenspanian Monitorist economic policies that kept interest rates (and consequently, workers' wages) low and promoted the transfer of wealth upward. Clintonomics was little more than Reaganomics, except that Clinton balanced budgets more often and raised taxes on the rich when he needed to.

But still, the rich got even richer, and the middle class got the occassional bone tossed to it (which seemed like filet mignon, considering the previous 20 years of stagnant wages), and the poor got even fewer of the scraps-- when they weren't getting "welfare reformed" into several poverty-wage jobs to feed their families.

Clinton was a good president in many respects, but he was not the messiah that the corporatists painted him.

[merh]

37. Yeah, the obvious, it was only 50 or Iraqis and 1 American killed today

the insurgents are losing.

Her characterization of the "facts" is what concerns me!

[still_one]

57. really, how about WMDs in Iraq

even though there was major evidence from inspectors to State Department personel which said otherwise

[Geek_Girl]

70. I find this particular statement by her troubling

<snip>
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
</snip>

Link

This is why I will not vote for or support Clinton in the GE or primaries in '08.

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

84. Which fact would that be?

A fighting force that continues to draw in new fighters and continues to strike out against a foreign occupation-- we may not like it, but it sounds as though they're doing pretty well.

[independentchristian]

31. Regardless of what the insurgents are doing

I can't stand the fact that the media is already coronating Hillary!

[DU GrovelBot]

34. ## 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.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Good! Can the "liberators" come home now, Hillary?

With all these "success" stories what in the hell are those troops doing there? Why are they carrying guns? Why do they need an extra $82bn?

They should just kiss the grateful, "liberated", joyfully democratic, Iraqis goodbye and come home. Doncha think, Hillary?

Hope she's not missing her photo-ops while mouthing nonsense.

[IndianaGreen]

39. Hillary is running for the nomination of the DLC faithful

she is not running as a Democratic Nelson Mandela or Desmond Tutu, and she sure doesn't have a shred of integrity, so that eliminates her as another Adlai Stevenson. She also lacks the charm and charisma of Big Dog.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wyldwolf]

43. So?

Is David Geffin a party leader? His opinion matters as much as your and mine do.

And they covered Dean's election on FOX, too.

[Cha]

46. NO..what did "David Geffin say about

Hillary"?

[KissMeKate]

44. the pretense of a stable country being "Destabilised" by sectarian strife

amazing that she is carrying water for Bush this way.

[Q]

48. She's not carrying water for Bush...

...she's carrying it for the DLC. Hmm...I guess in the end result it's the same thing.

[Geek_Girl]

71. I don't think she's caring water for the DLC or Bush

Her motives are purely for her own political purposes she helped to sell this war to the American public and so now she has to sell the White House BS of how well things are going in Iraq if she wants a shot at the White House.

[Carl Brennan]

49. THIS !!! Is what is wrong with the Democratic Party

and shows how little they differ from Repugs on such key issues as the undeclared Iraq "war". How in the blank do you destabilize chaos???

:puke: :puke: :puke: bucketsfull.

[still_one]

59. exactly

not many voted against the gulf of tonken resolution, but both Iraq and Viet Nam were wars based on a lie

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

86. LOL! Nice graphic!

Says whatever I could about the Iraq fiasco.

[Gloria]

51. The hardest part is yet to come....first, let's see who is the

Prime Minister; then let's see how far they get on the new Constitution.

These are very premature comments....what the hell is going on with her?

[still_one]

60. same thing that went on with most of Congress giving bush authority

to go into iraq in the first place, lack of courage

[IndianaGreen]

87. I used to think that it was lack of courage that made many Dems to vote...

for IWR. Now I am convinced that most of them share the same imperialist goals as Bush. A DLC neolib PPI imperialist is the flip side of a neocon PNAC imperialist, as a matter of fact, some of the signers of the PNAC document are current members of the DLC. The labels are interchangeable!

Like another DUers said, Hillary is just another neocon reactionary!

[Redleg]

68. She is preparing to run for president. She wants to sell herself

as a "reasonable democrat."

[ckramer]

72. Tell her "shove it"

[Muddy Waters Guitar]

80. I can understand why she said it, but wishing

doesn't make it true. I could only wish that the insurgents were being beaten in Iraq, but the brutal fact is that they're going to continue gaining strength as long as Iraqis see meddling foreign interlopers (us, in their view, and this is among the Shiites as much as the Sunni Arabs) on their territory. Many of our military spokespeople in Iraq have been saying things like the insurgents' attacks reflect their "desperation"-- classic wishful thinking. When an adversary continues to launch ferocious attacks that cause you severe damage, that shows your strength, not the other way around, whether or not we want to admit that.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

82. Yes. And the Americans scored a great victory with the Tet Offensive.

At least, that's what our military geniuses said at the time.

[autorank]

102. Different "geniuses," same story. We will destroy this country to save it

[NVMojo]

91. oh, really, Hillary?? U.S. in Secret Talks with Iraqi Insurgents

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers are conducting secret talks with Iraq's Sunni insurgents on ways to end fighting there, Time magazine reported on Sunday, citing Pentagon and other sources.
The Bush administration has said it would not negotiate with Iraqi fighters and there is no authorized dialogue but the U.S. is having "back-channel" communications with certain insurgents, unidentified Washington and Iraqi sources told the magazine.

The magazine cited a secret meeting between two members of the U.S. military and an Iraqi negotiator, a middle-aged former member of Saddam Hussein's regime and the senior representative of what he called the nationalist insurgency.

A U.S. officer tried to get names of other insurgent leaders while the Iraqi complained the new Shi'ite-dominated government was being controlled by Iran, according to an account of the meeting provided by the Iraqi negotiator.

"We are ready to work with you," the Iraqi negotiator said, according to Time.

more...

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=7681569

[Disturbed]

96. It has just now occured to me that

Iran is alligned with the U.S. in a bizzare way. Iran wanted Saddam out and now Iran wants the Sunni Insurgency crushed. In this matter the Bush Junta and the Iranian Govt. have the same goal.

[rodeodance]

99. what do you expect her to say in the middle of Iraq!!--

[Donailin]

107. She's jockying for position, pure and simple.

and I guess in her mind, she's doing what she needs to do to warm up republicans for future prospects. I guess it's called pandering because I have a hard time believing that this woman who called it like it is by publicly announcing there is a "right wing conspiracy" thinks any differently today.

I just don't think it will work.

[CWebster]

108. If ya can't beat them, join them

If it is the only way to keep your finger in the pie.

[Silverhair]

110. Hillary Clinton: Insurgency in Iraq Is Failing

Link: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=515943

"...Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.

Clinton, a New York Democrat, said insurgents intent on destabilizing the country had failed to disrupt Iraq's landmark Jan. 30 elections.

"The concerted effort to disrupt the elections was an abject failure. Not one polling place was shut down or overrun," Clinton told reporters..."

She opposes setting a withdrawal timeline, also.

Since when did she become a hawk?

[Bluebear]

So are your chances to become President.

[Igotsunshine]

Not so. I think Hillary can pull enough moderate female . . .

.. married repubs away from GOP nominee to take the '08 election. I'm against the unspeakable horrors of this war, but now that we're there, I want a democrat in the WH to get us out. I don't care that she supported the "authorization". I only care about today and my heart-felt belief that she can untangle this mess better than any repub . . . IF she gets the chance to be President. And to do that, she needs some cross-over GOP votes. I'm willing to overlook her poor judgement in giving dick-head "authority", but that was then. Now, I just want to win, baby! I'll turn the other cheek to see a democrat in the WH. In the end, the democrats will rally around her if she can beat the repub candidate.

[Jacobin]

I shudder to think of her running in 08

[CWebster]

It is fairly predictable

that those who know the least about Hillary are her biggest apologists.

[Padraig18]

Every Neanderthal with a heartbeat will organize against Hillary.

Hillary's nomination would energize the anti-progressives in this country like nothing else possibly could. Hillary would lose in a McGovernesque landslide, and probably cause us to lose yet more House and Senate seats, not to mention Governorships..

[Jacobin]

114. What's so progressive about

Supporting the PNAC agenda and voting for the bankruptcy reform bill that is about to be passed, royally SCREWING the middle and lower middle class?

Inquiring minds want to know.

[Padraig18]

115. Huh?

Did my post say something like that?

:shrug:

[IrateCitizen]

117. There's nothing progressive about it. Padraig didn't say that.

Hillary's biggest liability is that she is a corporatist centrist in liberal's clothing. To the conservatives and those who don't really follow her, she's perceived as some wild-eyed liberal. But to the progressive wing of the party and those who DO follow her, she is seen for what she is -- an opportunistic corporatist centrist.

So, she has RWers and moderates opposing her because she's a liberal -- and progressives opposing her because she's seen as largely worthless in promoting a progressive agenda.

I'll state right now -- if she runs in 2008, I will not vote for her in the primaries. If she gets the nomination, I will vote 3rd party.

[Placebo]

This isn't news.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1250538

[madrchsod]

go away hillary

you are becoming a republican and soon you`ll be joining zell on the republican rubber chicken circuit...

[leftyandproud]

lol

the most accurate sentence in this thread ;)

[iwantmycountryback]

Go ahead, ignore the truth

http://vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

Actions speak louder than words when you're a senator. As a far as I can tell, she seems to be the quite the solid Democrat. But no you're right, she's such a Republican that she's got a 95% rating from ADA each of the last 4 years. Just like Trent Lott!

[leftofthedial]

she is to the right of Nixon

eisenhower

even goldwater

[iwantmycountryback]

Um yeah

Her voting record, let's just say, seems to differ from that slander. I guess that's why she's gotten a 100% rating from the NAACP every year in office. But she did get a disturbing 0% rating from the Christian Coalition last year. Damn wingnut!!! That also must be the reason Gun Owners of America has given her a 0 rating the last 2 years. Actions speak louder than words if you're a senator. And Senator Clinton's actions are moderate-left in the least.

http://vote-smart.org/issue_rating_category.php?can_id=WNY99268

Not to mention she voted against the Gonzalez confirmation along with the class-action bill. Nobody seems to be giving her much credit to be among the few to vote against the class-action law.

[LittleClarkie]

Funny thing about "Right of Nixon" though

One of the Conservatives I know calls him a pussy for being too liberal.

I think about that sometimes, and what Dr. Thompson said about plunking down a vote gladly for Nixon over Bush anyday.

Hell, I think I would have campaigned for Nixon if it meant getting rid of Bush. Yesiree, I'd put on my Nixon Now button and hit the canvass trail (I have no idea why I have a Nixon Now button -- might have been my mom's -- she never did throw anything away.)

[no name no slogan]

122. Compared to today, Nixon WAS a liberal

In fact, he was even more liberal than John Kerry was on several issues.

In 1972, Nixon favored a base minimum payment each year to needy families to bring them above the poverty line. The closest K/E came to that was a $1 raise in the minimum wage-- which was still well below the poverty line for most workers.

Nixon also favored a single-payer national health care plan that would have provided universal coverage for all Americans. The only two Democrats who promoted that in 2004 were Sharpton and Kucinich.

Nixon also signed the EPA into law, and made sure that Johnson's Great Society programs were properly funded, too-- something he was not obligated to do.

Even compared to the Democrats in 2004, Nixon comes off as fairly liberal.

[Jacobin]

Did she also see the Light At the End of the Tunnel?

PNACing idiot.

:mad:

[John Q. Citizen]

Since always. Hillery is a member of the power elite and that who she

owes her allegence to.

Same as it ever was.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cappadonna]

Exactly, Hillary is more of a political oppurtunist than Bill!!!!

It shouldn't surprise anyone that Hillary Clinton is moving to the right. She's a technocrat, same as Bill Clinton, Al Gore and even John McCain. Their job isn't to be activists, they're is to stay in office. Triangulation is a fancy way of saying "take the safe and cautious route or the Repubs will throw my sorry ass out." Its cynical but is reality.


The Dems are now populate wiht political careerists more concerned about their next election than anything substantial. Ironically, the only people in DC who don't mince what side their bread is buttered on are the plutocratic wingnuts in BushCo inc. They are right wing hooligans and free market worshippers and they're policies always reflect that.

Ironically, Hillary of all people should know that placating to these wingnut bastards won't keep them from hating you. She's done nothing but kiss their pasty white asses since you got elected, and they still hate her guts. So why take such a hawkish position? Becuase despite her brilliance, she lacks the creativity and guts to stand up for what she knows is right. Hell, even Bubba occassionally showed some backbone.


I don't hate the Clintons, but just see them for what they are.

[Clarkie1]

The insurgency failed on Jan. 30th, and continues to fail.

At this time, the insurgents aren't winning. Obviously, most Iraqis do not support the insurgents who are murdering their fellow Iraqis and themselves. Merely stating the obvious does not make one a hawk.

However, it is not obvious that Iraq will one day emerge as a stable democracy. Future civil war is still possible, in my opinion. The suicide attacks continue to be a problem at present, albeit a problem coming from a small minority of thugs and murderers from the group that most benefited from Saddam Hussiens rule, aided by a an even smaller number of outside terrorists.

I hope the insurgents are defeated, but I doubt they will be completely. There will always be a few from Saddam's side and the outside willing to go on suicide missions, and I think it's likely the insurgency will continue at a relatively low-level for the foreseeable future.

The future of Iraq is far from certain, and I think Iran will soon become an even bigger issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Not a hawk?

She and other VichyDems are voting for more money to fight the "failed" insurgency.

Do "suicide attacks" kill any less than our glorious miltary does with artillary and bombing? But, then, they are "our" thugs and murderers.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Aw, shucks, did I hurt your feelings?

Challenge your patriotism? Question the glorious military? Not go along with the "God, bless America" majority?

Tsk, tsk.

USMC 1961-1965 You?

[Vinnie From Indy]

I suspect Agent Orange in your case!

One can be against this war and still hope our friends, relatives and neighbors aren't blown to bits. Your sweeping condemnation of our soldiers is repellant and unjustified.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wildwww2]

Vinnie from Indy did not acknowledge his or her service to the

country you served for. The use of our military to destroy a country for corporate profit. Is against our constitution. And the troops are just as guilty as Bu$h Inc. If they are not smart enough to see this. Some of them are and have gone to Canada. So as not to participate in Bu$h`s war crime. They are the ones that know. You do not follow unlawful orders. Lindy England and the father of her bastard child Graner. Should of known this. And told their superiors to do the freaking dog leash torture to death crap themselves. Vinnie should get to boot camp and then to Iraq as soon as possible. I think. By the way. I was in the USMC from `74-78.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Smedly Butler saw through the BS.

When he called it a "racket".

[Vinnie From Indy]

My Reply

I never implied that you were advocating the killing of our soldiers. I made a statement that even anti-war folks like myself still want my neighbors, friends and relatives to return from Iraq in one piece and unharmed.

Let's take a closer look at your comments.

Yeah. That's why they want $82Bln more.I suppose it's for candy bars to hand out to the joyful Iraqis.

You can throw sarcastic barbs until the cows come home, but what EXACTLY do you mean? Are you saying we should spend zero dollars now that we are neck deep in this thing?

But, we must be "patriotic" mustn't we and "support our troops" who are there doing God's work. They wouldn't dream of killing Iraqi women and children, would they? They only carry those guns and drop those bombs and level cities for the entertainment value. Right?

The "Good German" defense of aggression?

I guess that sarcasm habit is difficult to break. I can only infer what you mean here by assuming you believe the opposite of everything you have written above. Are you saying that our soldiers, as a group, are "dreaming of killing Iraqi women and children"? Are you implying that our soldiers are simply Einsatzgruppen wantonly rounding up people, executing them and tossing them into mass graves?

Just following orders you know. Lidice/Fallujah. Oradour/Baghdad.

Why should I want to move to Cuba? Gosh, are you accusing me of being one a' them commies? Maybe I should get one of those "America, love it or leave it" stickies that were popular when Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

Damn, if I had some crackers I could start using your sarcasm as a cheese spread.

She and other VichyDems are voting for more money to fight the "failed" insurgency

This bit of nonsense is just plain incorrect. Firstly, the whole "VichyDems" thing really doesn't fly in a historical sense. The implication that the Dems are like the Vichy govt. in France during WWII is really comparing apples and oranges. The second part about "voting for more money to fight the failed insurgency" is not the reason given by most Dems that are voting for the appropriation. Most Dems are stating that they are voting for the money in order to keep our soldiers supplied and keep them safe now that they are there and in harm's way.

Do "suicide attacks" kill any less than our glorious military does with artillary and bombing? But, then, they are "our" thugs and murderers

Suicide attacks do kill less than our artillery and our bombs so what is your point?

It is your next line that is the most unjustified and misdirected. These "thugs & murderers" that you refer to are, in fact, our neighbors, friends and relatives. You do not specify or qualify that disgusting generalized assertion in any way. No, your statement is quite clear. You seem believe that ALL of our soldiers, sailors, marines and coast guardsmen are "thugs & murderers".

For your information, my "sweeping condemnation" of soldiers is against all killers no matter what uniform they're wearing

What is a "killer" to you? Is it any person taking any life for any reason? Is there ever a justifiable reason to kill in your mind? What if the situation were such that killing ten would prevent the killing of millions? What would you do?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Ok. Let's both skip the sarcasm.

Soldiers, no matter what noble ideals they may express, are basically killers. That's what they are trained to do, that's what they are paid to do, and, that is what they do.

They are the enforcers.

Is there a "justifiable" reason to kill other people? Sure, I can come up with all sorts of hypothetical situations to justify homicide. The "killing 10 to save millions", is just another way of saying the old military adage of "sacrificing few to save many". Which is just hunky-dory as long as you aren't one of the lambs. It's as old as war itself. The Germans attacked Poland to prevent Polish agression. They destroyed Licice and Oradour to prevent "terrorism". The killed millions of Jews because they threatened the "Vaterland". We used Agent Orange, carpet bombed in Vietnam and murdered millions of people, to attain "Peace with Honor".

All of our soldiers, etc, are potential killers and thugs. As are the soldiers of any other country. They are trained to follow orders without question, despite the niceties of the Geneva Convention. Perhaps there a few who have the courage to defy "illegal" orders, but history shows that the vast majority don't.

"Suicide attacks kill less than our artillary". That is the point. Both kill. The insurgents justify their killing by waving the flag of patriotism, or religion. The Americans justify their killing by waving the flag of patriotism, or "spreading democracy". The dead and injured are just as dead or mangled no matter what the justification.

So, what's your "point"? That killing is "noble", "glorious", "heroic", or any of the other excuses foisted on us by the warmongers?

As Schopenhauer said, "Patriotism is the most the most foolish of passions, and the passion of fools."

[IrateCitizen]

120. Well stated, friend...

War is the ultimate failure of the human condition. Its primary output is death and destruction. And when it is engaged in foolishly or carelessly -- as it was WRT Iraq -- it only serves to legitimize violence as a means through which to achieve your objectives.

What on earth SHOULD the US expect in the occupation of Iraq besides what is happening right now? Should we expect insurgents to stare us down on the open battlefield? Or should we instead expect them to employ whatever means of violence they can generate in order to defeat a force that vastly outguns them?

It is the United States that unleashed this fury. For us to stand back and wring our hands and decry it while failing to simultaneously condemn the immoral and dishonorable actions taken by our own government is the height of hypocrisy -- the kind of action engaged in only by those still swayed by the myth of American exceptionalism.

[Vinnie From Indy]

123. You are clearly not addressing the issue

Both of you gentlemen can wax poetic all day long about the horrors of war, the futility of violence and the enormous mistakes made by ShrubCo. in Iraq, but that does NOTHING to address the real politique of this issue. Posters are sniping at Sen. Clinton and other Dems for approving the 84b appropriation for Iraq and but they do not in any way address the realities of the situation or offer any kind of realistic solution to the problems we encounter TODAY. It is always sooooo much easier to sit back and dig through some old quotes from philosophers etc. and throw around grand idealistic slogans and thinking while ignoring completely the actual nuts and bolts decisions that have to be made and the implications of those decisions. Don't for a minute think that it is only the far right that has "armchair" quarterbacks in regard to commenting on the Iraq war. Just as they spout nationalistic, patriotic slogans in favor of war so to does the far left with anti-war sloganeering and John Lennon style philosophical generalities. Neither of these things addresses the tactical decisions that are at the center of this particular debate. These statements are noise made by people that feel superior, smug and sanctimonious in thier idealogical ivory towers. There are people out here that want the situation to end and we are willing to discuss the specific issues that we face day after day to accomplish that with the least amount of death, destruction and horror.

I know there are some that have read this far and are itching to fire back with "Get the hell out of there now and let God sort it out" or some other bit of simplistic nonsense. Even that scenario would still require a great deal of money to accomplish. Sen. Clinton might as well as put a gun to her head if she took some posters advice and announced from Baghdad something like the "insurgents are winning and we need to get the hell out of here now". The fact is that our soldiers are not, as a group, thugs and murderers. The thugs and murderers among them are the thugs and murderers. Further, I would imagine there would be a line from Baghdad to Basra of GI's desperately wanting to come home if given the chance. One would think that former marines would understand that the majority of those soldiers over there now are not fighting for any grand American ideal of freedom or democracy, they are fighting to stay alive and keep their buddies alive. It is the same in this war as has been since Alexander the Great's exploits.

On another level, it is the height of hypocrisy for some to criticize and snipe without offering any workable specific solutions. They sit back and, using the broadest brush available, call everyone in the military "thugs and murderers" as though they, personally, are responsible for the death and horror of Iraq. I would posit that ALL of us in America are to blame for this piece of crap war. On the right it is the fundies, corporations and neo fascists and on the left it is all of us that failed to fight harder to prevent ShrubCo. from stealing the throne once again. The blame is not exclusive to only one or a few groups.

[IrateCitizen]

124. Ivory towers and philosophical waxings...

Clearly, friend, you know nothing about me nor where I come from on this issue. Some 2-1/2 years ago, I was an officer in the Army Reserve. I was confronted with the decision of either willingly participating in a war that I knew, before it started, to be immoral and dishonorable -- or placing myself on the line and resisting, however I could, in the face of such an unjust course.

It was the most difficult decision I have even been faced with in my life. I was torn in two between supporting my fellow soldiers and participating in what I knew to be a dishonorable military misadventure, or refusing to do so while feeling like I was letting them down in some way.

I chose to resist. I filed for status as a conscientious objector and was finally discharged from the military on 01 September 2004. While I do not regret my decision in any way, it is something that I will still feel anguish over for the rest of my time on this earth. But at the very least, I will be able to look my future children in the eye when I teach them how important it is to stand for what they believe in the hopes of building a better world for themselves and their children.

Since that time, I have dedicated myself in my spare time to speaking out and organizing against this unjust military occupation. I am a full-fledged member of Iraq Veterans Against the War. I helped form a conscientious objector support network, Peace-Out. I spend a good portion of the little spare time I have participating in speaking engagements,, counseling people in the military questioning the morality of their service, and participating in other activities to try and convince others to call for an end to the path we're on.

So, am I viewing all of this from an ivory tower? I think not. If anything, I'm in this up to my armpits. If anyone is exhibiting signs of the ivory tower syndrome, it's you, my friend.

[Vinnie From Indy]

127. Apologies. I replied to the wrong message. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

BTW Agent Orange was dropped by "our troops".

Just following orders, you know.

[Vinnie From Indy]

It should have said on the label - DO NOT USE AS A MOUTHWASH. n/t

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

And, your point is?

Actually, I believe the labels said that it was poisen. Which our glorious and noble troops dropped on civilians. Many of whom, and their children and grandchildren, still die from.

Perhaps you can justify it.

[Clarkie1]

I never agreed with this war.

But American soldiers do not strap bombs to themselves to kill women and children deliberately.

Yes, civilian deaths are a causualty of war and it's horrible (as I said, I was never for this war), but it's not the same as a suicide bomber killing themselves and innocents 100% deliberately.

[leyton]

Thank-you for being sane.

I'm glad to see that not every DUer equates our troops with Iraq terrorists.

[reichstag911]

Who cares...

...whether the killing of innocents is delibertate or unintentional? Either way, they're dead. Also, the reason US troops don't strap bombs to themselves is because...all together, now, people...they don't have to. Guerilla war and its low tech nature require oppressed and impoverished fighters to improvise tactics and ordnance; they don't have the luxury of smart bombs and heavy artillery to be fired from miles away.

[Nederland]

Everyone but you cares

Who cares whether the killing of innocents is deliberate or unintentional?

The distinction between killing someone deliberately and killing them unintentionally is quite clear in the moral and legal codes of every culture on the planet. The fact that you don't grasp the distinction is merely evidence of your ignorance of the subject matter.

[reichstag911]

Bite me, dutch boy.

I don't much give a shit about your artificial, frequently arbitrary "moral and legal codes," and neither do those killed by the US' illegal invasion of a sovereign country. Our soldiers, obeying illegal orders to invade and occupy a sovereign nation on false pretenses, are just the button men for the Bush/Cheney crime family. As for my "grasp," believe me, it reaches far beyond your ken.

[Nederland]

My my

Aren't we excitable?

[Clark2008]

119. The so-called "insurgents" aren't winning - but, if you remember

the insurgents are mostly Sunnah Muslims and wouldn't support the blend of Iraq and Iran.
You put several million Shi'ite Muslims in Iraq with the hundreds of millions of them in Iran and you have one great big nation in the Middle East with the brains, the funding and the means to build the next nuclear arm.
So, Hillary, ma' dear, I don't CARE if the insurgents are winning or failing - I care to get my troops the hell out of there, where we shouldn't be to begin with, before you let Bush start his damned Apocolypse.
:mad:

Why would anyone vote for this woman for president? She's a tool. The more I hear about her, the more I dislike her (and I used to like her!)

[IrateCitizen]

121. That's a common theme, friend...

The more I hear about her, the more I dislike her....

She's my Senator. I went from liking her, to being ambivalent toward her, to disliking her, to having little but contempt left for her.

All from following her record, and observing her soulless triangulation and corporatism.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

111. Yeah. That's why they want $82Bln more.

I suppose it's for candy bars to hand out to the joyful Iraqis.

Hillary has always been a hawk. Or, more aptly, an opportunist politican.

[iwantmycountryback]

112. Yeah I'd really prefer it if Clinton

started rooting for the Iraqi insurgents killing American soldiers and Iraqi women and children. If she took your advice, she would be not only NOT supporting the troops, but also would certainly be un-patriotic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Of course, if the American soldiers weren't there...

But, we must be "patriotic" mustn't we and "support our troops" who are there doing God's work. They wouldn't dream of killing Iraqi women and children, would they? They only carry those guns and drop those bombs and level cities for the entertainment value. Right?

The "Good German" defense of aggression?

[iwantmycountryback]

Yeah, as a matter a fact I do support our troops

And if you have a problem with you can move to Cuba or something. I realize that there are some bad apples in the armed forces, but most of them are honorable and they do as they are ordered to do by the President of the United States. Maybe we should fault him for forcing the troops to do what they are ordered to, and not the troops for doing their duty.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

Well, that's all the Germans did.

Just following orders you know. Lidice/Fallujah. Oradour/Baghdad.

Why should I want to move to Cuba? Gosh, are you accusing me of being one a' them commies? Maybe I should get one of those "America, love it or leave it" stickies that were popular when Hillary was a Goldwater Girl.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iwantmycountryback]

1. Oh me?? Thanks!!

I choose to blame the President, not the troops. But no really, thanks for calling me a Republican, because apparently Democrats are now supposed to think that the armed forces are just a bunch of murderers. No wonder we don't win anything anymore.

P.S.-If we want to start winning, maybe you should stop calling troops murderers. I believe the President is the murderer and our brave men and women must follow orders, whether they agree with them or not.

[cruadin]

113. I think your last comment ("opportunist politician") nails it.

She is no more or less a hawk than she has ever been, she is triangulating - in order to remain politically viable as a candidate in '08.

[IrateCitizen]

116. Don't even know where to begin...

Hillary continues to sicken and disgust me more and more. She's my Senator, and I would love nothing better than to see someone successfully primary her and displace her. Sadly, since NY is such a party-machine state, that won't likely happen anytime soon.

Her finger-in-the-wind triangulation is becoming even more apparent. She's saying we need to soften our stance on reproductive rights. She's carrying water for the ongoing conquest of Iraq.

The insurgency didn't seriously disrupt the elections -- that much is true. But to say they're LOSING??? She's out of her mind. The insurgency has done nothing but grow in strength and numbers since the occupation began. And it will continue to grow with each innocent Iraqi that is killed, whether intentionally or unintentionally. It will continue to grow with each door kicked in and home terrorized by US troops on patrol. It will continue to grow as US interests continue to attempt to profiteer from Iraq's economy. It will continue to grow so long as US troops, who are seen by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis as an occupying force, remain on the ground.

Most Iraqis don't belong to the insurgency. That is true. But most also want the US troops the hell out of their country, and view those troops as an occupying force. They at the very least look at our troops with a jaundiced eye, if not outright hatred.

Hillary, you triangulate your position on the backs of US troops at your own peril. I'm certain that many of the veterans' groups and such that are organizing against the occupation, like Iraq Veterans Against the War (http://www.ivaw.net) will not be giving you any kind of endorsement anytime soon.

Albert Einstein defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result. By that definition, Hillary should be fitted for a straitjacket any time now....

[MadHound]

118. Well, judging by her actions, she has always been a hawk

After all, she voted for the IWR, and there isn't a military budget that she hasn't voted for either.

However, her opinion that the war is going well, and that the insurgency is failing simply flies in the face of reality. With US casualties increasing, Iraqi casualties increasing, an increase in insurgent attacks, and the stark reality that the US simply cannot secure even the Green Zone, much less an entire city, I would say Hilary's rose colored glasses must be especially thick these days.

Hilary is swinging to the right in order to position herself for a run in '08, and I can tell you already, she will fail. After all, it isn't like the Democratic party didn't swing ever further rightward the last three election cycles, and look at all the success that they have had:eye:

It is time for these corporate Dems to be ousted from office in favor of true liberals and progressives.

[nolabels]

126. Sen. Clinton Says Iraq Insurgents Failing the propaganda war

Understanding she is speaking from the privileged elites point of view helps in deciphering the message. The real war is of secondary consequence with these people. Their major concern it getting YOU to believe what they say.

On edit, here chew some Hackworth for awhile

Pentagon is lying its way out of an unwinnable war - again

Col. David Hackworth
Published: Sunday, Feb. 20, 2005

As with Vietnam, the Iraqi tar pit was oh-so-easy to sink into, but appears to be just as tough to exit.

This should be no big surprise! Most slugfests - from bar brawls to military misadventures like Vietnam and Iraq - take some clever moves to step away from once the swinging starts.

This is why most combat vets pick their fights carefully. They look at their scars, remember the madness and are always mindful of the fallout.

That’s not the case in Washington, where the White House and the Pentagon are run by civilians who have never sweated it out on a battlefield. Never before in our country’s history has an administration charged with defending our nation been so lacking in hands-on combat experience and therefore so ignorant about the art and science of war.
(snip)
http://nsnlb.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050220/OPINION04/102200015/-1/opinion
http://www.antiwar.com/