Is Hillary trying to re-write history?

[eweaver155]

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill0722,0,139405.story?coll=ny-top-headlines

Just after 4 a.m. Wednesday morning, a drowsy Hillary Rodham Clinton stood in the Senate chamber during the all-night debate on Iraq and declared matter-of-factly: "I have called for the strategic redeployment of U.S. forces out of Iraq for several years."

That surprised anti-war activists camped out near the Capitol, listening to the speech on the radio. Clinton, they knew, had supported withdrawal from Iraq for less than two years, 20 months to be exact.

"We thought it was ridiculous that she was trying to rewrite history," said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CodePink, an anti-war group that has staged protests at Clinton's public appearances since she voted for the Iraq invasion in October 2002. "She's moving back her own timetable ... We all let out a collective guffaw when we heard her say that."

Was Clinton's statement a verbal typo, a gaffe by a woman who desperately needed a nap? Or was she trying to backdate her record to make it seem like she's advocated withdrawal longer than she actually has?

She's said it before

Clinton opposed calls for redeployment until Nov. 15, 2005, when she voted with senators of both parties for a "phased redeployment" of troops without a specific timetable, her staff said.

A Newsday review of her speeches, press releases, votes and committee transcripts revealed no evidence that she publicly backed redeployment before the vote.

Still, Clinton has recently claimed her call for withdrawal came much earlier. On Jan. 18, 2007, she told PBS correspondent Gwen Ifill, "You know, for more than a year-and-a-half I've been in favor of phased redeployment of our troops ... based on a comprehensive strategy."

She made virtually the same remark to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News a day later, suggesting she favored redeployment during the summer of 2005.

In fact, Clinton was advocating a significantly different approach at the time. In July 2005, she co-sponsored a bill with Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman to increase the Army's strength by 80,000 troops to deal with manpower shortages caused by Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clinton's language in the Democratic debates also has raised questions about the timing of her anti-war stance.

In the April 26 Democratic debate in South Carolina, for example, Clinton said she and other Democrats had advocated a withdrawal timetable "for a number of years."

But 10 months earlier, in a speech booed by anti-war activists, Clinton said it was not "smart strategy to set a date certain" for withdrawal.

[acmavm]

1. I have been wondering for a long time whether she thinks that no one

will notice this shit. She does play fast and loose with the truth when it comes to her record on issues.

[illinoisprogressive]

2. I noticed this as well and no one until this article has called her on it.

[Lerkfish]

3. triangulation is a pain in the neck, aint it?

you have to keep track of all your positions.

[Ethelk2044]

6. You also have to hope people will not remember what you said

last week, last month or last year. The American people need to have Alzheimer disease.

[MLFerrell]

15. It's not a pain in the anything if you're consistently honest and forthcoming...

Two traits that Clin-ton certainly doesn't embody.

[illinoisprogressive]

4. I'm sure Mark Penn keeps track of them all. lol

[Tellurian]

10. No some of us rely on facts not news hype trying to distort the Truth..

"But the claim that Clinton was once one of the "staunchest" backers" of the Iraq war does not withstand scrutiny -- nor does the claim that her criticism of the war is recent".

While Clinton did vote in favor of the 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, less than seven months after the war began, she expressed doubt about President Bush's leadership in the war, saying in an October 17, 2003, floor statement, that her "yes" vote for an $87 billion supplemental appropriation "was a vote for our troops, it was a vote for our mission. ... It was not a vote for our national leadership." During the same statement, Clinton accused the Bush administration of having "gilded the lily" on pre-war Iraq intelligence at "the cost of perhaps not being able to take actions in the future that are necessary to our well-being and our interests because we may look like the nation or at the least the administration that cried wolf."

"In a December 7, 2003, appearance on ABC's This Week, Clinton said of the Bush administration's handling of the war: "There were a lot of miscalculation and, frankly, inept planning that we're now living with the consequences." She went on to say, "I regret the way the president has used the authority" given to him by Congress."

"Further, on the August 29, 2004, edition of CNN's Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer, Clinton criticized the administration for taking the country to war on faulty premises. Referring to the Iraq war resolution -- which she voted for on October 10, 2002 -- Clinton said, "If we had known then what we know now, there wouldn't have been a vote."

Clinton has refused to "come out against" the Iraq war: (This fallacy has been debunked long ago)

"Some media figures have depicted Clinton as hesitant to oppose the war. For instance, on the February 8 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews said of Clinton, "I'm sick of what`s going on in Iraq. I wish she would come out against it." But as Bob Somerby noted on his blog, The Daily Howler, Clinton had clearly stated a week earlier that she would end the war if elected president. Indeed, in a February 2 speech, she said, "If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

Further, Clinton co-sponsored and was one of 38 Democrats who voted in favor of a resolution by Democratic Sens. Carl Levin (MI) and Jack Reed (RI), introduced on June 19, 2006, calling on the Bush administration to begin withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of 2006.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702130005

...So, is it Barry or Barack? Is BO and environmentalist or is he backing Coal pollution? Is BO a Wall Street's corporate whore by accepting their donations or as BO said, he's bringing a new way of doing politics to Washington? Which is it?

[Tom Joad]

21. her speech, before the war started, when it counted, was magnificent

better than colin powell, better than dick cheney. she was there for george, she was there for the warlords at halliburton.

HillaryRodhamClinton:

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change (note: actually, interfering in the affairs of a sovereign nation, including clinton era, bombing, was a crime in itself), including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

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.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

[Tellurian]

22. Link or slink...

But, but, but....Obama is seeking advise from Colin Powell...

How does that fit into your purity standards?

[Tom Joad]

23. why do you presume i support obama?

but i really don't care who the candidates talk to, its what they do, or the positions they have taken and say they will do when elected.

[Tellurian]

30. I don't...

you used Colin Powell as the example. I provided a reminder.

[MannyGoldstein]

77. But She Was Opposed To The War When She Voted For It!!!

Embrace the triangle...

[ncabot22]

27. Why bring Barack Obama into this debate?

The OP was about Clinton and the issues Code Pink seem to have with her. He didn't discuss the Clinton issue; they did. I could understand if you attacked Medea Benjamin, as she is the one mocking Hillary. Why bring Obama and coal into a discussion on Hillary's voting record? Makes no sense.

[Tellurian]

32. I provided the debunkment in Truth of the OP, as pure neologisms

Obama is a germane topic to the discussion...especially his latest stand on ending the War in Iraq. not!

[maximusveritas]

5. Could any other candidate have gotten away with this?

The media nitpicks every little possible mistake by Obama and Edwards, but has let Hillary get away with major distortions like this.

[Ethelk2044]

7. Not unless they get in good with the media and get a friend a polling company.

[MannyGoldstein]

8. And She's Still Not In Favor Of Pulling All Of Them

Just some. Not too much. Not too little. Just in the middle.

EMBRACE THE TRIANGLE

[Tellurian]

11. Obama's plan to continue Bush/Cheney policy in Iraq for the BLIND Obama supporters!!

A continuation of the Bush/Cheney Iraq Policy...:

"Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That's why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

But adding troops isn't just about meeting a quota. It's about recruiting the best and brightest to service, and it's about keeping them in service by providing them with the first-rate equipment, armor, training, and incentives they deserve. It's about providing funding to enable the National Guard to achieve an adequate state of readiness again. And it's about honoring our veterans by giving them the respect and dignity they deserve and the care and benefits they have earned.

A 21st century military will also require us to invest in our men and women's ability to succeed in today's complicated conflicts. We know that on the streets of Baghdad, a little bit of Arabic can actually provide security to our soldiers. Yet, just a year ago, less than 1% of the American military could speak a language such as Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, or Korean. It's time we recognize these as critical skills for our military, and it's time we recruit and train for them".

Of course, how we use our armed forces matters just as much as how they are prepared.

(...)

"A recent report detailed Al Qaeda's progress in recruiting a new generation of leaders to replace the ones we have captured or killed. The new recruits come from a broader range of countries than the old leadership - from Afghanistan to Chechnya, from Britain to Germany, from Algeria to Pakistan. Most of these recruits are in their early thirties.

They operate freely in the disaffected communities and disconnected corners of our interconnected world - the impoverished, weak and ungoverned states that have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror and pandemic disease and the smuggling of deadly weapons.

Some of these terrorist recruits may have always been destined to take the path they did - accepting a tragically warped view of their religion in which God rewards the killing of innocents. But millions of young men and women have not."

(...)

"We have heard much over the last six years about how America's larger purpose in the world is to promote the spread of freedom - that it is the yearning of all who live in the shadow of tyranny and despair.

I agree. But this yearning is not satisfied by simply deposing a dictator and setting up a ballot box. The true desire of all mankind is not only to live free lives, but lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and simple justice."

(...)

"As President, I will double our annual investments in meeting these challenges to $50 billion by 2012and ensure that those new resources are directed towards these strategic goals.

No President should ever hesitate to use force - unilaterally if necessary - to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened. But when we use force in situations other than self-defense, we should make every effort to garner the clear support and participation of others - the kind of burden-sharing and support President George H.W. Bush mustered before he launched Operation Desert Storm.

And when we do send our men and women into harm's way, we must also clearly define the mission, prescribe concrete political and military objectives, seek out advice of our military commanders, evaluate the intelligence, plan accordingly, and ensure that our troops have the resources, support, and equipment they need to protect themselves and fulfill their mission.

We must take these steps with the knowledge that while sometimes necessary, force is the costliest weapon in the arsenal of American power in terms of lives and treasure. And it's far from the only measure of our strength.

In order to advance our national security and our common security, we must call on the full arsenal of American power and ingenuity. To constrain rogue nations, we must use effective diplomacy and muscular alliances. To penetrate terrorist networks, we need a nimble intelligence community - with strong leadership that forces agencies to share information, and invests in the tools, technologies and human intelligence that can get the job done. To maintain our influence in the world economy, we need to get our fiscal house in order. And to weaken the hand of hostile dictators, we must free ourselves from our oil addiction. None of these expressions of power can supplant the need for a strong military. Instead, they complement our military, and help ensure that the use of force is not our sole available option.

The third way America must lead again is by marshalling a global effort to meet a threat that rises above all others in urgency - securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction.

As leaders from Henry Kissinger to George Shultz to Bill Perry to Sam Nunn have all warned, the actions we are taking today on this issue are simply not adequate to the danger."

Obama's examples for security ALL pointing to a continuation of The Republican/Neocon leadership we all despise, to the year 2012 and if Mr.Obama is reelected, 2016. Let me know if theres any part of Obama's 5 Step Foreign Policy Plan that indicates he plans on ending the Wars and bringing our troops home, if he's elected.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam.html

[MannyGoldstein]

14. So Wrong. Unlike Mrs. Clinton, Obama Was Against Attacking Iraq.

Does he say anwhere that he's in favor of attacking Iraq? Or going to war in general? I'm not seeing any of that in your torrent of words.

I see him saying that we need a strong military, and we should fight if we're attacked or about to be attacked.

This seems like a no-brainer - and much different than Mrs. Clinton's "Deck 'Em!" policy as applied to Iraq. Much, much different.

He has absolutely said that we should bring the troops home - 15 seconds on Google would tell you that. He's in favor of leaving some troops IF they're invited to, and our troops are not shot at.

[Tellurian]

16. No where in Obama's statement does it say he'll end the War..

what it says is this:

"Our men and women in uniform are performing heroically around the world in some of the most difficult conditions imaginable. But the war in Afghanistan and the ill-advised invasion of Iraq have clearly demonstrated the consequences of underestimating the number of troops required to fight two wars and defend our homeland. That's why I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.

But adding troops isn't just about meeting a quota. It's about recruiting the best and brightest to service, and it's about keeping them in service by providing them with the first-rate equipment, armor, training, and incentives they deserve. It's about providing funding to enable the National Guard to achieve an adequate state of readiness again. And it's about honoring our veterans by giving them the respect and dignity they deserve and the care and benefits they have earned.

A 21st century military will also require us to invest in our men and women's ability to succeed in today's complicated conflicts. We know that on the streets of Baghdad, a little bit of Arabic can actually provide security to our soldiers. Yet, just a year ago, less than 1% of the American military could speak a language such as Arabic, Mandarin, Hindi, Urdu, or Korean. It's time we recognize these as critical skills for our military, and it's time we recruit and train for them".

Of course, how we use our armed forces matters just as much as how they are prepared."

...Obama favors the Bush plan of MORE troops! Obama's OFFICIAL statement was made in March of 07'...

[maximusveritas]

24. That's not true. He says it quite clearly.

"In a speech five months ago, I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi'a factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement - a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008."

[Tellurian]

29. We like links for verification of statements..

It's also against DU Rules to call another poster a Liar!

[TeamJordan23]

31. Here is the verification, now retract your allegation.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/fpccga/

From his speech in April 2007:

"The first way America will lead is by bringing a responsible end to this war in Iraq and refocusing on the critical challenges in the broader region.

In a speech five months ago, I argued that there can be no military solution to what has become a political conflict between Sunni and Shi’a factions. And I laid out a plan that I still believe offers the best chance of pressuring these warring factions toward a political settlement – a phased withdrawal of American forces with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31st, 2008."

Also in the speech:

"We now know how badly this Administration squandered that opportunity. In 2002, I stated my opposition to the war in Iraq, not only because it was an unnecessary diversion from the struggle against the terrorists who attacked us on September 11th, but also because it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the threats that 9/11 brought to light. I believed then, and believe now, that it was based on old ideologies and outdated strategies – a determination to fight a 21st century struggle with a 20th century mindset."

[Tellurian]

34. Yes, and when you read on you find this.. No where does he state

he's bringing the troops HOME You assume that. Obama's plan is to redeploy the troops elsewhere in the ME

"I acknowledged at the time that there are risks involved in such an approach. That is why my plan provides for an over-the-horizon force that could prevent chaos in the wider region, and allows for a limited number of troops to remain in Iraq to fight al Qaeda and other terrorists.

But my plan also makes clear that continued U.S. commitment to Iraq depends on the Iraqi government meeting a series of well-defined benchmarks necessary to reach a political settlement. Thus far, the Iraqi government has made very little progress in meeting any of the benchmarks, in part because the President has refused time and again to tell the Iraqi government that we will not be there forever. The President's escalation of U.S. forces may bring a temporary reduction in the violence in Baghdad, at the price of increased U.S. casualties - though the experience so far is not encouraging. But it cannot change the political dynamic in Iraq. A phased withdrawal can.

Moreover, until we change our approach in Iraq, it will be increasingly difficult to refocus our efforts on the challenges in the wider region - on the conflict in the Middle East, where Hamas and Hezbollah feel emboldened and Israel's prospects for a secure peace seem uncertain; on Iran, which has been strengthened by the war in Iraq; and on Afghanistan, where more American forces are needed to battle al Qaeda, track down Osama bin Laden, and stop that country from backsliding toward instability."

...as I said before, Obama's plan continues the Bush policys of war in the ME..

[TeamJordan23]

47. And HRC will not go track down Bin Laden? nm

[Tellurian]

49. Let's not deviate from the topic at hand...

trying to change the subject won't change the facts refuting the OP allegation in post #10!

[TeamJordan23]

56. Post #10 does not address the issue. Clinton opposed calls for redeployment until Nov. 15, 2005.

Post #10 does not show that she wanted a redeployment before that.

[maximusveritas]

33. You already gave the link yourself

The quote was from the same statement you linked to, which is why I called your assertion a lie. Nevertheless, since it's against the rules, I just edited it out.

[Tellurian]

35. Don't try to shift blame for your faulty reading comprehension to me...

Again! I repeat! No where does Obama state he is bringing the troops HOME!

He does state redeployment elsewhere in the ME...Just is as is Bush's plan!

[maximusveritas]

37. This is insane. You've changed your argument

Look at what you originally asserted:
"No where in Obama's statement does it say he'll end the War."
Now, you've changed that to "bringing the troops HOME!"
This is why I had you on my ignore list in the first place, which is where you're going back right now.

[Tellurian]

40. Obama maintains he does not intend to bring the troops home

he intends to deploy them elsewhere...
So the War continues just somewhere else in the ME.

[Ethelk2044]

41. Obama has clearly stated he will start pulling the troops out.

However, this topic of discussion is why Hillary has gotten away with her lies about her stance on the Iraq war issue by the media.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[Yael]

9. Shes hoping for the selective soundbytes on You Tube to carry her

The left doesn't trust her and the right loathes the woman. I am surprised that she is carrying the support that she has.

It would make me happy as a pig in mud to watch her go up against DK in a debate.

[Tom Joad]

12. Hillary and truth just don't get along. I want a date certain for Hillary to withdrawal.

no room for liars, no room for war supporters, no room for hypocrites.

[Tellurian]

20. Try Obama's Truthfulness as the litmus test for Truth...

Obama's letters for Rezko

NOT A FAVOR? | (Obama denied helping Rezko. Read On!)

As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer's deal

June 13, 2007


As a state senator, Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14 million from taxpayers to build apartments for senior citizens.

The deal included $855,000 in development fees for Rezko and his partner, Allison S. Davis, Obama's former boss, according to records from the project, which was four blocks outside Obama's state Senate district.

Obama's letters, written nearly nine years ago, for the first time show the Democratic presidential hopeful did a political favor for Rezko -- a longtime friend, campaign fund-raiser and client of the law firm where Obama worked -- who was indicted last fall on federal charges that accuse him of demanding kickbacks from companies seeking state business under Gov. Blagojevich.

The letters appear to contradict a statement last December from Obama, who told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.''

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/425305,CST-NWS-obama13.article

...Obama will have to recant that statement on the stand during the Rezko Trial in 2/08...Otherwise, he'll be impeached by Fitzgerald for perjury! Thats the long and the short of Obama's estrangement with the TRUTH!

[TeamJordan23]

26. really pathetic, Tell. Nm

[Tellurian]

36. Why? Because it will be an embarrassment to you in 2/08?

I feel your pain. You have been a devoted defender and supporter of BO...

Why continue defending a politician in a LIE? It's beyond me.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

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

[LetsThink]

13. I think we should be careful.....

....Not to fall into a trap where we begin beating up our allies, in the push to get our troops out of the sectarian meat grinder, civil war called Iraq. Want to bring a smile to your local NeoCons? Just squabble and beat at each other!

Let's applaud those who go in the direction we want them to go-- let's support those who come to the rational positions: those who support out troops by getting them out of an escalating conflict we can not win; those who return to focus US resources on fighting terrorism; those who support increased domestic security (ports, cities, localities, etc.) for potential foreign and natural disaster prevention/response and-- those who effectively focus on our domestic needs - like health care, education, living wage, environmental and energy issues.

Respectfully submitted to my D.U. colleages, readership-----

[Tom Joad]

18. we are not saying anything against our allies, we are talking about hillary.

the one who helped push war on iraq. and will support war against iran. want to make the warlords happy... support hillary. Murdoch is doin' just that.

[Tellurian]

19. Read posts #10, #11 and #16... It's Obama who wants to continue Bush's plan!

[Ethelk2044]

43. Her statements in her own words

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

"How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

"I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."

April has become the deadliest month for U.S. forces in Iraq since the war began more than a year ago. The U.S.-led coalition faces insurrections on several fronts, including the Sunni Muslim stronghold of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, and the militia of a Shiite Muslim cleric in Najaf in the south.

To the disappointment of some antiwar liberals in her Democratic base, Clinton, the former first lady, voted in favor of the Iraq war resolution in October 2002.

"Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

But she said the Bush administration's short-circuiting of the U.N. weapons inspection process didn't permit "the inspectors to finish whatever task they could have accomplished to demonstrate one way or the other what was there."

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

How quickly she forgets.

[rodeodance]

38. yes. We do tend to give fodder to the neocons at times

[TeamJordan23]

25. We have known this, but the MSM never asks her about this. nm

[illinoisprogressive]

28. because the msm covers for Hillary and spins for her. Just like Bush

[Tellurian]

39. Because the Lies about Hillary have been debunked time and time again!

There is a thread archived specifically about the Lies already debunked..you should read it when you have time.
and not be so quick to jump on the bandwagon of fools propagating nonsense.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3147704

[Ethelk2044]

42. Unfortunately this is not a lie. She clearly was out front pushing the war.

Now she is trying to retract her statements. It will not work. We all have memories of her pushing for the war. She stood out front. Making it not only Bush War, be her war as well.

[TeamJordan23]

46. Go ahead and try to rebuke this article and her quotes. I am waiting. nm

[Tellurian]

48. TJ..Look to post #10... why do you continue this charade

The sum total of that post has more than one refutation to the OP's allegation..

[TeamJordan23]

55. #10 isn't even relevant to the OP or article. She claims she has wanted a redeployment for years

But her record and her statements don't back that up. Nothing in your "post #10" even talks about redeployment. Whereas, in 2005, she was seeking to add more troops

[Tellurian]

59. Where does it say in 05' Hillary wanted more troops added?

Link?

[TeamJordan23]

60. LOL. Read the OP, its in the article. Co-Sponsored a bill with Leiberman to increase troops by 80K.

She made virtually the same remark to Greta Van Susteren on Fox News a day later, suggesting she favored redeployment during the summer of 2005.

In fact, Clinton was advocating a significantly different approach at the time. In July 2005, she co-sponsored a bill with Connecticut Democrat Joe Lieberman to increase the Army's strength by 80,000 troops to deal with manpower shortages caused by Iraq and Afghanistan.

Clinton's language in the Democratic debates also has raised questions about the timing of her anti-war stance.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-ushill0722,0,139405.story?track=rss

[paulk]

61. that bill wasn't for an increase in troops in Iraq, as the OP implies

the idea was to rotate National Guard troops out of Iraq and Kuwait by replacing them with the new recruits. Also to lesson the deployments of regular Army.

It's not much different than what Kerry and other Democrats proposed in 2003.

[Tellurian]

62. Funny enough the Newsday Article is light on Links to back their spin!

I just googled and there is no such story about Hillary increasing troops.

[TeamJordan23]

67. Very convenient you intrepret it that way for HRC, but the other way for Obama

When he said there will be an increase in armed forces, you state that it is because he wants to continue Bush/Cheney plan in the Middle East (yah, it does sound absurd to most people not named Tellurian). But when HRC was for increasing troop size, what was the purpose of that?

Also, why did HRC not talk about a deployment until nearly the winter of 2005?

[Ethelk2044]

68. Tellurian is doing just like Hillary talking out both sides of the mouth.

[Tellurian]

69. You've never provided a source to the Newsday article..

where you claim Hillary wanted to increase the troops by 80,000..

So where is the original article Newsday claims exists?

[Ethelk2044]

70. I have posted three links you want any others you look for them yourself

No matter how you try to spin it. She flip flopped and the media knows it as well.

[TeamJordan23]

73. Here are some other sources for you that talk about Clinton/Leiberman's bill to increase troops

She introduced legislation last week, along with Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Jack Reed of Rhode Island, to boost the Army by 80,000 soldiers over the next four years.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-07-18-hillary-cover_x.htm


Clinton called Wednesday for boosting the Army by 80,000 soldiers over four years, and was back in front of television cameras again

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8573139/

So let me ask, under your standard for Obama, was Hillary promoting the Bush/Cheney plan when she proposed this bill with her friend, Joe Leiberman?

[illinoisprogressive]

44. It is recorded all the different rewrites she does. Like this one.

[BeyondGeography]

50. The Republicans will have a field day with her multitudinous war stands

and, even if she's the nominee and she wins, the public will have learned not to trust a thing that comes out of her mouth.

[Tellurian]

51. They don't stand a chance..

If you read in post #10..The OP and the Republicans have been dismissed out of hand long ago by Media Matters..

here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3392969#3393011

[BeyondGeography]

53. Like Americans give a flying fuck about Media Matters

Her mountain of nuanced quotes on all sides of the issue will be boiled down to the same sound-bite that killed Kerry; she was for the war before she was against it.

Next.

[Tellurian]

57. Nevertheless, The Clintons know how to defend against Swiftys..

they are the only ones that can!

[Ethelk2044]

63. They will eat her a live. All they have to do is use her own video

to back them up.

[Kingstree]

66. Yes, they will

[Tellurian]

72. This is the only place that has trouble keeping up with the Truth about Hillary

I don't have any problem with Hillary telling the Truth and keeping her facts straight. I can't say the same for BO!

[democrat2thecore]

52. Remember something...

Hell, come on, politicians have been lying and exaggerating since time immemorial. Bill took liberties with the truth repeatedly. Surely we can all agree on that? John Edwards has pulled some fast ones in his career. Obama, Richardson, Biden......all of them are POLITICIANS. Almost by definition, (no matter how much most of love politics), it means they will say whatever needs to said to whatever group to raise funds to win the election to begin raising funds to win re-election! It's sad, but true. And being a "typical politician," knows no party unfortunately. The true believers, the men & women of conviction in politics never make it far enough to be successful on the national stage. (Otherwise Bernie Sanders would be our nominee apparent!) That's just my opinion, of course, but don't kill the messenger. This truth about politicians is older than the hills.

My point? Yeah, Hillary lied. And for every lie from Hillary, someone can give you one from another of our candidates for the nomination. Tit for tat. Tat for tit. And on and on we go - and things will never change.

[hedgehog]

54. This is the kind of cynicism "they're all alike" that undercuts people's

belief in voting.It's also lazy. It's the attitude that labeled Kerry's different responses on a bill as it underwent amendment flip-flopping. Maybe some politician somewhere told one group one thing and another group something else. Give us names and dates, not broad bush accusations.

Ironically, there is another thread on DU today complaining about Obama's stand on social security. Does that sound like "will say whatever needs to said to whatever group to raise funds to win the election to begin raising funds to win" ?

As to the OP, all I know about this is that Hillary was not presented as an anti-war candidate in 2006 and she refused to debate Jonathan Tasini, who was running in the Democratic primary as an anti-war, pro single payer candidate.

[Ethelk2044]

64. Good Point

[democrat2thecore]

74. I envy your idealiism, but I stand by what I said -nt

[Tellurian]

58. Have you forgotten the Clintons have been under a microscope

for the last 15 yrs? They have never had the liberty of doublespeak as so many candidates are allowed to do. The Clintons have always been held to a higher standard than other candidates for ONE reason and ONE reason ONLY!....The Clintons CAN/WILL WIN!
Beating the pants off of any potential Republican contenders.

[Kingstree]

65. It is not holding her to a higher standard. It is holding her to the same

standard as other politicians. She should be held accountable for her past statements.

[Tellurian]

71. Name one battle Obama has fought for and Won?

[MannyGoldstein]

75. Name One Battle Mrs. Clinton Has Fought And Won

Name a single thing that Mrs. Clinton did in the Senate that required a shred of political courage.

[motocicleta]

76. crickets

the silence is deafening. Ms./Mr. Tellurian can spin with the best, so we should expect something soon, but I don't have much hope of a solid answer. Perhaps claiming that the Clintons can win (! double exclamation point! bold type! - I would be mortified, absolutely agoraphobic ashamed, to claim my candidate and her ex-president husband will win the presidency; the narrative leaps needed to make that claim are simply too much for a thinking person to stomach) took too much out of her/him to go on.

[Tellurian]

78. I asked first... then I'll answer you...

as a matter of fact, name one election Obama has won that wasn't against a disqualified opponent?

[MannyGoldstein]

79. Name One Election That Mrs. Clinton Has Won Against A Non-Third-Rate Candidate

Bubkes.

Like the list of times she's shown political courage of any sort in the Senate.

[Tellurian]

80. Can't answer my questions can you. Only fling mud at the next president...

sour grapes, poor you!

[Bodhi BloodWave]

81. This might be a rather foolish question

But what exactly does Obama have to do with this thread and topic?

Last i checked this was about some comments made by (not yet and might not be president)Hillary, so i'd say you are doing rather well at derailing it from its purpose but thats just my view

[MannyGoldstein]

82. I'm Not Here To Defend Obama - But You ARE Here To Defend Mrs. Clinton

Which, seemingly, you cannot.

[Ethelk2044]

85. Hillary has never own words will come back to hunt her in the primary as well as the General

Election

[LWolf]

83. Her talking points are carefully geared

towards what she thinks her audience wants to hear. Accuracy is irrelevant.

[illinoisprogressive]

84. yes. pandering is more her speed.