Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

A Vote for Hillary - is a vote for more of the "perpetual war economy"

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:18 PM
Original message
A Vote for Hillary - is a vote for more of the "perpetual war economy"
Hillary Clinton on Iraq
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4802

"Public opinion polls have consistently shown that the majority of Americans and even a larger majority of Democrats believe that Iraq is the most important issue of the day, that it was wrong for the United States to have invaded that country, and the United States should completely withdraw its forces in short order. Despite this, the clear front-runner for the Democratic Party nomination for president is Senator Hillary Clinton, a strident backer of the invasion who only recently and opportunistically began to criticize the war and call for a partial withdrawal of American forces.

As a result, it is important to review Senator Clintons past and current positions regarding the Iraq War. Indeed, despite her efforts in response to public opinion polls to come across as an opponent of the war, Hillary Clinton has proven to be one of the most hard-line Democratic senators in support of a military response to the challenges posed by Iraq. She has also been less than honest in justifying her militaristic policies, raising concerns that she might support military interventions elsewhere."

Hillary Clinton on International Law
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803

"Perhaps the most terrible legacy of the administration of President George W. Bush has been its utter disregard for such basic international legal norms as the ban against aggressive war, respect for the UN Charter, and acceptance of international judicial review. Furthermore, under Bushs leadership, the United States has cultivated a disrespect for basic human rights, a disdain for reputable international human rights monitoring groups, and a lack of concern for international humanitarian law.

Ironically, the current front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president shares much of President Bushs dangerous attitudes toward international law and human rights.

For example, Senator Hillary Clinton has opposed restrictions on U.S. arms transfers and police training to governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Indeed, she has supported unconditional U.S. arms transfers and police training to such repressive and autocratic governments as Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Pakistan, Equatorial Guinea, Azerbaijan, Cameroon, Kazakhstan, and Chad, just to name a few. She has also refused to join many of her Democratic colleagues in signing a letter endorsing a treaty that would limit arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross and systematic human rights violations."

Hillary Clinton on Military Policy
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4811

"While much attention has been given to Senator Hillary Clintons support for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, her foreign policy record regarding other international conflicts and her apparent eagerness to accept the use of force appears to indicate that her fateful vote authorizing the invasion and her subsequent support for the occupation and counter-insurgency war was no aberration. Indeed, theres every indication that, as president, her foreign policy agenda would closely parallel that of the Bush administration. Despite efforts by some conservative Republicans to portray her as being on the left wing of the Democratic Party, in reality her foreign policy positions bear a far closer resemblance to those of Ronald Reagan than they do of George McGovern.

For example, rather than challenge President George W. Bushs dramatic increases in military spending, Senator Clinton argues that they are not enough and the United States needs to spend even more in subsequent years. At the end of the Cold War, many Democrats were claiming that the American public would be able to benefit from a peace dividend resulting from dramatically-reduced military spending following the demise of the Soviet Union. Clinton, however, has called for dramatic increases in the military budget, even though the United States, despite being surrounded by two oceans and weak friendly neighbors, already spends as much on its military as all the rest of the world combined.

Mama Warbucks

Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate Democrat or Republican and her close ties to the defense industry has led the Village Voice to refer to her as Mama Warbucks. She has even fought the Bush administration in restoring funding for some of the very few weapons systems the Bush administration has sought to cut in recent years. Pentagon officials and defense contractors have given Senator Clinton high marks for listening to their concerns, promoting their products and leveraging her ties to the Pentagon, comparing her favorably to the hawkish former Washington Senator Scoop Jackson and other pro-military Democrats of earlier eras."

-----------

Just as hillarycare II is a disaster, hillary the war-monger's foreign "policies" would be more of the worst of the same...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
1. Oh, just go ahead and call her hitlery and get it over with.
slimy hit pieces like this say more about the source than the subject
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:23 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. they sure do.
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:24 PM by cali
but the OP clearly likes to shit pick and play with the shit. I can smell the stink from here. Criticize Edwards or Obama- even within the bounds of fair play and you get accused of tearing up our candidates. Post a hit piece like this and it's sure to hit the greatest page in under ten minutes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. then please provide some info to prove this wrong...
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:28 PM by Whisp
"""Her presidential campaign has received far more money from defense contractors than any other candidate Democrat or Republican """

are you saying this is a fabrication and has no relevance as to whether she would favor defense contractors? and when are defense contractors the happiest?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #4
10. no, I'm not saying that's wrong. I'm saying I could
for instance, put together something that painted John Edwards as a "war monger" by posting the fact that he co-sponsored the IWR, and supported military action rather than the use of diplomacy. Any of our candidates can be framed in a way that's deeply negative and intrinsically dishonest. The OP leaves out that Clinton has vowed to use direct diplomacy with Iran and end the war.

I don't support Clinton, but I despise these kinds of posts because they use some facts and omit others, and fashion a narrative that's simply not accurate. It's the narrative that's the fabrication, not the fact that she's received more money from military contractors than any other candidate. Let's examine that: How meaningful is it? How big a slice of her total funding is it? Do we have any reason to believe that she'll be unduly influenced by the defense industry? All those are reasonable questions but the OP doesn't bother asking them. It's a hit piece, and if it were about any other candidate but Clinton, DU would be outraged.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:36 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. End the war?
Isn't she for leaving troops in (as the other top-tier candidates are as well)?

Hit pieces are going to be posted. Having a conniption won't stop them. Ignoring them or refuting them is the sensible thing to do.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 03:28 PM
Response to Reply #13
60. Not just "leaving troops in Iraq",
but continuing Combat Missions against Al Qaeda (whoever she decides THAT is), and "protecting" American (Corporate) interests (whatever she decides THAT is).

Hillary has pledged to keep the WAR going. She is just going to try to downsize it a little and give it a different name.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
64. her stance on Iraq is the same as every other democratic candidate
except Kucinich. They are all for leaving some troops behind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:46 PM
Response to Reply #10
26. Edwards deserves his lumps for that vote and co-sponsorship.
that is the why I would never support him either. Pointing that out does not make me a hit piecer, it's simply a fact. I think the debate should be talking about these hard 'facts' a lot more than the cheesey fluff that is out there now .

Don't you find it odd that there has been more coverage (at least on CNN ) about the 'kindergarten' and other nonissues than there has been about the fact that Edwards and Clinton were a part in the biggest, deadlest mistake in in rushing to Iraq on the word of a stupid little man and his dark alliances?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #26
38. I wouldn't know about CNN. I don't have tv
and I'm not interested in it. But I think it's simply that this is the way they cover campaigns rather than a cover up. It seems from the little I know that the MSM is more interested in gossip than news.

I objecct to anything that's simplistic and dishonest. I don't think Clinton is a "war monger" and I don't think Edwards is either, despite the fact that I won't vote for either in the primariy precisely because I think that vote demonstrated such a huge lack of judgement and moral fortitude.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
68. let's back the least stupid.... Kucinich.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Ah, the truth hurts don't it, bunky? (n/t)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #7
15. what a tired and boring cliche, pumpkin
(though it's amusing to see that I've started a little trend around here, poopsie.)

That's not truth. It's some facts, some omissions, woven into a dishonest hit piece. It's pathetic, dumpling.

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
46. pumpkin
:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 01:49 AM
Response to Reply #1
56. You people call yourselves names and then blame us. Why not address the facts?
I would once like to see someone defend Clinton's positions on the issues instead of screaming BASHER as a kind of insane distraction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skip Intro Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #56
57. Excuse me, who are "you people?"
Edited on Sat Dec-15-07 10:06 AM by Skip Intro

and from the OP:

"Just as hillarycare II is a disaster, hillary the war-monger's foreign "policies" would be more of the worst of the same..."

now doesn't it look like hitlery would fit right in there?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Stephanie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #57
58. You see? YOU put words in the OP's mouth and then you whine about it.
Nobody called her that name but YOU. The OP is talking about POLICY. Why don't you defend her POSITIONS instead of playing victim? It's ridiculous. "The OP COULD have used this horrible name right here in this sentence! Why, that's terrible! How dare they write a sentence that this horrible name could be used in! BASHER!" Come on. Address the issues. Stand up for your candidate's positions. Is she right or wrong? Nobody's name-calling here but you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:26 PM
Response to Original message
3. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
9. Good ole' hillary would have been sitting right next
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:38 PM by ProudDad
to Jumpin' Joe McCarthy... bobbing here head in agreement with the demagogue...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:27 PM
Response to Original message
5. 2013 is not soon enough. Do I smell complicity between her campaign check
Sources and her committment to staying in Iraq?

USA out of Iraq. No Baghdad Embassy. Out Now!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Whisp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #5
8. Truth is a Hit Piece.
apparently.
:eyesroll:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:35 PM
Response to Reply #5
11. Nooooo... I'm sure it's just coincidence. Or maybe it's all lies!
If so I do hope some intrepid Clinton supporter will put the lie to that claim mentioned above, that she's getting the lion's share of the $$ from defense contractors this go-round.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
19. She is getting the largest amount of war contributions
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:42 PM by ProudDad
FACT...



Gee, maybe they see an ally...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Well clearly you are just posting hit posts.
That's a very mean thing to say.

Next you'll be talking about the cackle, I'm sure.

:eyes:

:sarcasm:

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #21
25. I get it
You're actually an agent provocateur...posting these amazingly idiotic parodies of a fanatic hillary supporter.

Yeah, that's it...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
32. I don't think you "get" what you think you "get".
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
37. "Defense contibutions" aren't "war contributions". But you know that.
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
20. Corporate financing of elections is Bribery, pure and simple.
No it isn't! Corporate financing of elections is just another way that our corporate conglomerates can show their love of Freedom.
And mom And Apple Pie.

BUT IT IS BRIBERY!

No, it isn't. It is the modern way for Corporations to show the middle and low income people that their kids too can die in a war!

BUT IT IS BRIBERY.

BIG PHARMA: Here, take your morning meds.

(Me) Ooh, now I do see what you mean, Big Corporation. Thank you for caring and sharing!

And <side effects may include dizziness, dry mouth, loss of choice in elections and a great deal of nauseous feeling that will not go away.>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Lobbyists are people too!
:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:47 PM
Response to Reply #22
27. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #27
30. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
6. k&r
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:35 PM
Response to Original message
12. I Will Wager A $1000.00 Donation To DU
That the defense budget will go up regardless of who is elected in 08, be it a Democrat or Republican...


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Unless it was President Kucinich
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:37 PM by ProudDad
but, probably ain't gonna happen in an election owned and managed by the corporate capitalist masters of both "parties"...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. Bill Clinton cut it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
24. He did!
That's one thing we must give him credit for.

He cut it and didn't then turn around and privatize it either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
16. When has the US not been in a "perpetual war economy"?
Iraq = the Military-Industrial complex? I don't think so. Which president cut the funding the most? That would be Bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. 1941 -- was the last year...
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:44 PM by ProudDad
Bill didn't do shit compared to what he could have done from '91 to '93...

After '89 it should have been slashed to 1/4 of what it was but then, no perpetual war economy to fuel the consumption machine (http://www.storyofstuff.com /)

It was blue-dogs like hillary and a burning desire for a 2nd term that blocked him then...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #18
34. Hillary stopped Bill cutting the military?
You have some inside information on the Clinton White House?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:55 PM
Response to Reply #34
36. Some of the people here are psychics!
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:55 PM by redqueen
Didn't you know?

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Egnever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:44 PM
Response to Original message
23. Thanks :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:48 PM
Response to Original message
28. A vote for Hillary is our best bet for Peace and Harmony
She is the first and only candidate who promised to end the war immediately upon taking office, if Bush's war is still going on when she takes the oath.

That is only one of the hundreds of reasons why Hillary and Dennis are the only true peace candidates. When it comes to peace and how to promote it, Senator Clinton is the leader and the rest are followers. The others might talk about it, but Hillary will get the job done. yeah
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
47. I thought she supported keeping soldiers there... even "after the war"...
just like the other top-tier candidates.

Has she changed her position?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #47
65. You have her stance a bit muddled
She is for ending the Iraq war and bringing the troops home. She is for keeping a few there to make sure that the terrorists do not come in with the vaccuum of US leaving. And that is common sense--and every other candidate agrees (except Kucinich)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudDad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
29. I'll bet you those little piggies on this thread, screaming the loudest
didn't read the articles... :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #29
41. deleted
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 02:06 PM by redqueen
pointless
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oasis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:51 PM
Response to Original message
31. When it comes to national defense, gimme Hillary. (eom)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Truth2Tell Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 01:47 AM
Response to Reply #31
55. Defense from what?
The terra ists? Coming to get you? Booga booga!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:52 PM
Response to Original message
33. A vote for ANY of the top three is a vote for the same.
Edited on Fri Dec-14-07 01:53 PM by redqueen
Or can't you manage to "get" that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #33
35. I would add in Biden.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
redqueen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #35
44. Yeah...
you might be right.

Anything you'd like to share to show why you'd include him?

:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
denem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #44
51. I could be wrong
'Strong on Defense' is strikingly absent from Joe's website. It's all policy detail (gasp).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DrFunkenstein Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
39. Keep Those Nukes on The Table and Pass The Ammunition
Sen. Clinton has proven that she has "what it takes" to be "tough" on national "defense."

If it takes a nuclear missile to flush out a handful of terrorists, then we should be willing to cross that moral threshold without hestitation - otherwise the terrorists win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:04 PM
Response to Original message
40. FACT: Hillary is the ONLY Democrat to vote for both the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman
That's why she gets more defense industry $$ - and lobbyist money in general - than any other candidate, Republican or Democrat. Guess they like someone
who's good for their bottom line.

Lobbyists are people, too." ~ Hillary Clinton, Yearly Kos 2007
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
42. False
The majority of Democratic Senators who had the opportunity voted for both. Would you like to see a run down of Kyl-Lieberman to see how many other Democrats voted for it?

Now if you said she was the only Democratic candidate who did so, then you might have a case.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #42
52. I left out the words "only presidential candidate and" Democrat
That's true.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #40
43. FACT: Obama & McCain are the only 2 Senators in Congress who didn't have the guts to vote in the K-L
At least all our other candidates, right or wrong, had the courage to put their asses on the line in this vote. Obama always seems to manage to come up absent for all the tough calls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 03:17 PM
Response to Reply #43
53. Who cares? Obama came out against it and his vote wouldn't have made a difference.
Next red herrring?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. But donchya see? The beauty of not voting is that he can say whatever he wants & get away with it
for now. He and McCain just didn't want to put their asses on the line in any official sense because they were looking ahead to the general election when tough votes like Kyl-Lieberman could come back to haunt them. Depending what the political atmosphere of the moment is, let's say 9 months from now when the situation in Iran could change drastically, those two Senators could say, "Well I didn't vote that way for it".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClarkUSA Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 05:14 PM
Response to Reply #54
63. I don't agree... the fact is Obama was and is against K-L while Hillary voted for it and IWR
Any other interpretation - including mine regarding Harry Reid's leaving less than an hour for Obama to return from a NH rally for a vote Reid
had said earlier would not take place at all - is subjective.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 06:43 PM
Response to Reply #54
67. That is exactly right--and he has a history of doing the same
avoiding votes and then he can say anything he wants. At least Clinton takes a stand.

Also: Obama DID agree that the guard was a terrorist organization. And, he has talked in the past of nukes and Iran. He is not crystal clean on this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #40
50. Not like Obama tried to stop it. Or go on record that he was against it.
I expect the same from Obama as I do Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
amandabeech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 10:58 PM
Response to Reply #40
69. Her speeches and votes relating to Iran give me nightmares.
I'm afraid that she'll want to blow up the entire Middle East and I don't think that is in the interest of the U.S.

We need calm in that part of the world, or our economy will completely tank.

Many people say that we need to get off Middle East oil. Why? So we can bomb every country that puts it through the Persian Gulf?

I've been studying oil for five years, and I don't think that we have much chance of avoiding buying the stuff from the Middle East, because they'll be the last place pumping and anyone who can afford it will buy it until it's gone. The stuff is just that useful.

I say that we make nice over there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:34 PM
Response to Original message
45. Here is another souce:
"Because of her perch on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton has been able to earmark $1.4 billion for defense contractors in New York state since she arrived in the Senate, including $140 million this year, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. Her record of home-state defense earmarking on that panel is second only to that of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), who is chairman of the committee and has served in the Senate since 1979.

Clinton has raised more than $270,000 for her campaigns from defense companies with New York operations that have received federal money with her help."


http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-earmarks10de...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Franc_Lee Donating Member (287 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:57 PM
Response to Original message
48. A Vote for Hillary - is a vote for more of the same, but from a Dem...
Obama = R-e-a-l Change!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Dec-14-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
49. I'd say a vote for Obama is most likely the same.
Considering in 2004 he said that he and George Bush's position on Iraq was pretty much the same.

With both Hillary and Obama we're screwn on this issue. Maybe with Edwards too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
59. some excerpts from Hillary Clinton on International Law
Edited on Sat Dec-15-07 01:41 PM by lwfern
"Senator Clinton has refused to support the international treaty to ban land mines, which are responsible for killing and maiming thousands of civilians worldwide, a disproportionate percentage of whom have been children."

"She was also among a minority of Democratic Senators to side with the Republican majority last year in voting down a Democratic-sponsored resolution restricting U.S. exports of cluster bombs to countries that use them against civilian-populated areas."

"She opposed UN efforts to investigate alleged war crimes by Israeli occupation forces and criticized President Bush for calling on Israel to pull back from its violent re-conquest of Palestinian cities in violation of UN Security Council resolutions."

"In 2002, Senator Clinton voted in favor of an amendment by right-wing Senator Jesse Helms that prohibits the United States from cooperating in any way with the International Criminal Court, and its prosecution of individuals responsible for serious crimes against humanity, such as those responsible for the genocide in Darfur. In addition, this vindictive law also restricts U.S. foreign aid to countries that support the ICC. Nicknamed the Hague Invasion Act, the bill also authorizes the president of the United States to use all means necessary and appropriate to free members of United States military and certain other allied persons if they are detained or imprisoned by an international criminal court, including military force."

I would encourage people to read that full article. http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/4803
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bvar22 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #59
61. But...but....but....
Hillary is "The Angle of Peace"!

You must surely be mistaken.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noamnety Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. Peace Through Landmines!


(maybe she could hire me as her new slogan writer)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
biermeister Donating Member (425 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-15-07 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
66. a vote for hilary is a vote for
the same bullshit that we have now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Nov 25th 2014, 10:04 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

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

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


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

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

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

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC