Dean: "... my allegiance is to ... the Beltway."

[NYC Liberal]

H. Dean: "... my allegiance is to ... the Beltway."
--Full Quote: "I may be controversial, but my allegiance is to people outside the Beltway."

H. Dean: "We ... need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah."
--Full Quote: "We don't need to spend $200 and $300 and $500 billion bringing democracy to Iraq to turn it over to people who believe that Israel doesn't have a right to defend itself and who refuse to condemn Hezbollah."

D. Kucinich: "America stands strongest in challenging terrorism when we ... give up an inch of our civil liberties."
--Full Quote: "America stands strongest in challenging terrorism when we do not give up an inch of our civil liberties."

A. Lincoln: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion ... allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and ... allow him to make war at pleasure."
--Full Quote: "Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure."

H. Clinton: "It's working. We're just years too late in changing our tactics."
--Full Quote: "We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working. We’re just years too late changing our tactics."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This has been a lesson on a sometimes poorly-grasped concept of "context."

Because we all know that Howard Dean's allegiance is not to those outside Washington, but to the establishment, and that he thinks we need to spend billions to hand Iraq over to anti-Semites. We know that Dennis Kucinich thinks we need to give up some of our rights to be strong against terrorism. And we know that Abraham Lincoln thinks we ought to give the President unlimited power to invade other countries whenever he think it's necessary.

That is, if you ignore the context and ignore those little ellipses in between the words...

[jgraz]

1. In this context, define "working"

See, I don't think context helps you when you tacitly accept BushCo's framing.


And, btw, none of those other "quotes" are taken out of context. They're just misquoted.

[NYC Liberal]

2. No, you have to define WHAT she said was working.

She never said "the surge" was working, she said changing tactics in SPECIFIC AREAS was working to some degree.

[jgraz]

6. Exactly -- Clintonian weasel-words

What the hell did she mean? What is "working" in this context? Killing more Iraqis? Getting more money to Halliburton?

This war is ILLEGAL and IMMORAL. It's not possible to have something "working" in this context unless you accept the neocon premise that the war was somehow justifiable.

That is why people have a problem with what she said.

[NYC Liberal]

7. Why don't you watch or read the whole speech if you want to know what she means?

Why are you relying on snippets of quotes from the MSM when we KNOW they twist and lie and distort?

[karynnj]

8. Then tell me what the "new war" is in the same paragraph

I honestly don't know how to read it. It is almost like she skipped a sentence or something.

[NYC Liberal]

10. She was repeating the (old) "saying" about not fighting the current war with your tactics

from the previous one. It was in the context of tactics.

[karynnj]

19. Except it really doesn't fit

Which old war's tacticts are we using for what new war? Iraq is pretty old as wars go. If it is repeating that old saying, it fits poorly and is extremely confusing in terms of what she is proposing. (If Obama had said this - her team would have had the knives out on this.)

[jgraz]

9. Yes, that horrible way they quoted her directly was completely uncalled for

:eyes:

[NYC Liberal]

11. You claimed you don't know what she means.

I simply suggested reading the REST of her remarks so that you might understand what she means. I never said they didn't quote her, they simply didn't quote her ENTIRE speech now did they?

[jgraz]

14. How rude of them to not carry her entire speech verbatim without commentary

It's almost like they're some kind of ...writers or something.

So tell me, what "change of tactics" is she talking about if not the surge? Has there been some other tactical change that I've missed?

I read her speech, even if you weren't courteous enough to provide a link. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/08/21/clinton-iraq-tactics-wo_n_61272.html) Now you read it. Tell me where she qualifies her remarks. Show where the grand elucidation occurs. Point out where she explains that the "new tactics" in Anbar are not Bush's death surge, but some as yet unmentioned military maneuver.

I suspect that you didn't provide a link because you really don't want anyone to actually read her entire speech. Because then people might realize that she really IS talking about the surge when she praises the change in tactics. And they might also read the part where she buys the entire premise of Bush's Global War on Terror hook, line and sinker. Or maybe they'll just choke on the disgusting pandering that is her new push for a "Cold War Medal" for "everyone who served our country during the Cold War, because you were on the front lines of battling communism." :puke:

One thing you won't find in that speech -- or any other of hers -- is a shred of core belief, a glimmer of hope for the disadvantaged or a single sincere workable solution to the mess that 27 years of conservative rule has left us. You just hear more of the same, more crap to please the bobble head shows and the brokers, and nothing for the real people whom she expects to vote for her.

It's truly disgusting that this woman is even being considered as the nominee of my party.

[NYC Liberal]

16. I never said they had to quote her entire speech for a news article,

I simply said that they didn't BECAUSE it was one. So I said you should go read it. And clearly when I said "go read the whole speech", several times no less, I was really saying "don't go read the whole speech." :eyes: Right. A link wasn't necessary because I gave you enough credit that I thought you could pretty easily find a transcript yourself. And guess what...you did! Congratulations...

Now let's look at the speech, shall we? She says, "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar province, it's working." Clearly when she says that a change in tactics is working in "some areas" (not all, mind you, SOME), that would mean that it is NOT WORKING in most of the other areas.

Then she says, "We have to be preparing to fight the new war. And this new war requires different tactics and strategies. We've got to be prepared to maintain the best fighting force in the world." Ooh, wait a minute! You mean "changing tactics" ISN'T referring only to Iraq? You mean she is saying we have to change tactics in the so-called "war on terror"? Wait, GW Bush started this whole "war on terror"...so that means she is saying BUSH'S tactics thus far are NOT working! :think:

See, the reason she doesn't spell this all out is because she assumes that people are smart enough to "get it." Because it's pretty obvious.

As for your not finding "a glimmer of hope for the disadvantaged" in any of her speeches, you must not read or watch many. That, or you're just being deliberately obtuse.

I also, by the way, love the line of reasoning that says "Hillary is an EVIL REPUBLICAN CONSERRRRVATIVE!" at the same declaring that if she is nominated, that will energize those Republican conservatives to vote AGAINST her! :rofl:

[jgraz]

17. Sound and fury, signifying nothing

So many words to avoid stating any real principle -- a typical Hillary speech. I've been listening to those speeches since the '92 primaries, and they're all the same. Lofty rhetoric and high-minded generalities, all to cover the agenda of a corporate opportunist.

Spin all you want, the woman has done little to move this debate forward or inspire any real loyalty or passion in our party. I never thought I'd say this, but I almost miss Kerry.

[NYC Liberal]

18. Yep, see if you don't agree with her 100%, then she must be a "corporate opportunist"

I think you summed it up in your last reply, when you said, "It's truly disgusting that this woman is even being considered as the nominee of my party."

Apparently that's how you see things. "ME ME ME!" "MY party" not "OUR party." No room for disagreement from what jgraz says.

[karynnj]

21. How lame - have you ever said "my country" or "my state" or even "my family"

My never meant exclusive ownership.

[jgraz]

22. "Lame" indeed

Most people who have their arguments so thoroughly destroyed can at least come up with a credible personal insult as they slink away. Though, I will give NYCLib his props for giving it the old college try -- this one really is proving to be unspinnable, even by the most devoted HillBot.

[NYC Liberal]

25. You are the one whose argument has been destroyed and so left me with

little to respond to. If you think she only speaks in "lofty rhetoric and high-minded generalities" then it is clear you have not listened to (or read) many of her speeches. And it's also clear you have no interest in doing so lest you be proven wrong. You've been repeating the tired meme from around here that Hillary is a "right-wing corporatist" or whatever it is these days. The problem is that you don't have anything to back that up. It's nice sharp rhetoric -- "corporatist" "war-mongerer" "right-winger" -- but it's just that, rhetoric.

So clearly it isn't Hillary speaking in "lofty rhetoric and high-minded generalities."

[jgraz]

26. You just keep repeating that to yourself

I'm sure it sounds reasonable inside your own head. :eyes:

[NYC Liberal]

27. I guess asking for links and proof when you make claims is

being "unreasonable." If it is, well then I guess I am!

[jgraz]

28. Like it would make a difference?

You've already shown yourself to be immune from new information. Address the issues you've been studiously ignoring from my previous posts and then maybe I'll do some research for you.

[NYC Liberal]

29. I haven't been ignored them, I've been disagreeing with them.

Big difference there. You haven't given any new information or facts, just your opinions.

[karynnj]

20. What "NEW WAR"?

Iraq is now over 4 years old and the ill named War on Terror is older. As wars go, neither of these are new. What is she talking about. If she means FUTURE wars, then she should say future and maybe added words like - if unavoidable using the most concerted diplomatic efort possible. (Something like "America never goes to war because it wants to, only when it has to as a last resort" would be nice.)

I would like to get a coherent concept of under what circumstance Clinton would take the country to war. In fact, I would like the same from Obama and Edwards. None of them have really articulated a more philoshopical view on this. (Obama's 2002 speech deals specifically with Iraq but lends some insight.) I will not support Clinton in the primary, but I realize their is a good chance she will be the nominee - so I really do want to know where she is on these issues.

[NYC Liberal]

24. Look at the context. She is talking here about tactics.

She is not talking about a specific "war" here, she is saying that you cannot fight the current war with the previous war's tactics. It's a pretty well-known adage and I'm pretty sure she assumed most people would know that. Clearly nothing Bush has done has worked, and not just in Iraq, but everywhere in his "War on Terror."

If you honestly would like to know what she thinks about war and diplomacy, you should read her speech http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=2366">here:

There are more troops in Iraq today then ever before. The Iraqi government is more fractured and less effective. The right strategy before the surge and the right strategy now -- post-escalation -- is the same. Start bringing our troops home.

Unfortunately, for most of the past six years, President Bush has adopted a simple and fundamentally flawed strategy for dealing with these countries: we don't talk to bad people.

I think you agree with me that we strongly disagree with this approach. Even during the Cold War, we never stopped speaking to the Soviet Union. Even when they had thousands of missiles pointed at us. Even when their leaders threatened to bury us. Even when they were invading countries and inciting military uprisings around the world. That was the smart policy -- one embraced by both Democrats and Republicans.

We know this approach can be as effective now as it was back then. Look what happened when the Administration -- after six years of neglect during which North Korea built up its nuclear program -- finally pursued aggressive, face-to-face talks with North Korea. We got them to agree to suspend their nuclear weapons program -- and we didn't have to sacrifice a single American life to achieve that goal.

When I am President, we will deal with Syria and Iran right from the beginning, we will engage them in open, frank, tough-minded discussions about the status of Iraq. And we will convey our strong, bi-partisan position that Iran cannot be allowed obtain nuclear weapons.

Now, let me be clear: engagement does not mean a warm embrace. I have no illusions about Iran and Syria. But, we must also be realistic. Diplomacy is difficult and time-consuming. It is frustrating at times, and it may not bear fruit. But it is the best tool we have, given the challenges we face.

As we are leaving Iraq -- and after we have left -- we need to engage the world in a global humanitarian effort to confront the human costs created by this war. That is the final component of our diplomatic initiative.

(Emphasis mine.)

There is a lot more there than what I've excerpted though.

[illinoisprogressive]

3. The press uses this to push their agendas and trash reputations.

[patrice]

4. Good Reminder! Something that needs to be repeated often.

Context, context, context. If people become aware of it, they will also discover more information in the process.

Meaning is relative; the question is relative to What. Answering that question will be a progressive experience for the electorate.

[Totally Committed]

5. "Selected truth" -- It didn't start with Rove, but it was perfected by him....

TC

[AtomicKitten]

12. context is everything

[jgraz]

23. and everything is context

Great tune. ;)

[rucky]

13. so you want us to ... ignore the context, eh? n/t

[sandnsea]

15. It's not working - anywhere

There is no military solution in Iraq. It is whack-a-mole - as it's been for 4 years.