Clinton Denounces Cheney for Terrorism Comments

[sabra]

http://www.wnyc.org/news/articles/63162

Clinton Denounces Cheney for Terrorism Comments

NEW YORK, NY August 11, 2006 —Senator Hillary Clinton has denounced Vice President Dick Cheney for saying terrorists would be emboldened by the results of Connecticut's Democratic Primary.

...

CLINTON: I don't take anything he says seriously anymore. I think that he has been a very counterproductive even destructive force in our country and I am very disheartened by the failure of leadership from the president and vice president.

...

A spokeswoman for the vice president said his comments on the importance of a strong national security strategy "speak for themselves."

[wtmusic]

1. But I would never vote to censure his boss

blah blah blah

[Zomby Woof]

2. She's damn right

It is time to start calling out these thugs and cretins publicly for their fearmongering propaganda.

[ckramer]

3. Hillary needs to keep doing this kind of good work until 2008

Keep it up lady!

[jayfish]

22. What Good Work Are You Talking About Exactly?

Making "tough" statements that get coverage on WNYC?

Jay

[jobycom]

48. She's been doing it all along, but you wouldn't know it around here

There are people on DU who would rather attack her than Bush, and have no idea what she does or says.

[timeforchangenow]

58. All you need to do is look at her voting record

to see that she really DOESN'T do for the democrats what she says. Turncoat Clinton.

[jobycom]

61. You should look at it, you'd learn you're wrong.

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

[timeforchangenow]

66. I did and I see that...

Clinton voted NO on Kerry's call for immediate withdrawl from Iraq Bill Number: S 2766
and voted Yes to extend the Patriot act Bill Number: HR 3199. Also, Clinton's stumping and support of Liberman wasn't very good for her image. One turncoat helping another. Hey Liberman got a "good luck" call from KKKarl Rove. ECH! I'm not wrong and I'm also not blind.

[jobycom]

73. You're spinning badly

27 other Dems voted against S 2766. It was a showboat amendment (one of over 300) on a defense appropriations bill, never meant to pass.

HR 3199, even Kerry and Kennedy voted for it. Only 10 Senators voted against it, including Murray and Feinstein, so it was hardly a courageous stance made by liberals. It included hard-won concessions from the Republicans on HS, so many Dems voted for it to gain the concessions. There was never a question of whether it would pass, only of whether the Dems could get some safeguards in it. They did, so most of them voted for it.

Understanding the votes is more important than looking at the tally.

Next?

[timeforchangenow]

75. Spinning uh that's exactly what you did to my post

Did I say Kerry was better? I also noticed that Clinton voted for the same "feel good showboat amendment" You prove my point furter, name for me any consession won that was worth the vote against Democratic party lines? Give me one and I'll shut up. Just one!

[jobycom]

78. What?

I just proved she didn't vote against party lines on either bill, so your question makes no sense. Neither does your first statement, since you are the one who pointed out that Clinton voted against S 2766, and now you are claiming she voted for it. She didn't, she voted against it, as you said the first time.

Welcome to DU, but please pay a bit of attention to what you post.

[timeforchangenow]

79. Dude it's not that hard

she voted to extend the patriot act and then she voted NO against immediate withdrawl from Iraq, she also voted even to for a time table and I quote, "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. ... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. ... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw."

That's not hard to understand. I don't care what concessions were won, it make democrats look like pushovers.

[jobycom]

92. It would be easier to understand if you understood that you don't

know what you are talking about. I'll explain it one more time, just the facts, and see if you can keep up.

Her comment about it not being the right time to withdraw was made in September of 2005, long before the votes were talking about. She made them to the Village Voice regarding a meeting with Cindy Sheehan. She was agreeing we needed to end the conflict, but disagreed with putting a timetable on withdrawal.

Fast forward to November, 2005. Hillary begins calling for a timetable to begin troop pullouts, saying nothing is being accomplished. She called for troop redeployments to begin early in the following year. At this same time, Murtha switches sides and begins calling for them, and the House even votes on the issue, and Murtha was called a coward for wanting to "cut and run." This was the beginning of the liberals loving the moderate to conservative Murtha, but somehow Hillary's call for withdrawals was overlooked.

Now, move forward, as the rest of the Party is trying to do. June 22, 2006. There is a bill (you do not seem to understand this part, so follow along) to budget military spending on the floor. It's a big bill, so there are many amendments (over 300). There is much debate on te Iraq war, and the Democrats in the Senate are making much news on their opposition to the war. Kerry and Feingold sponsor an amendment (this is the one you brought up first) calling for full troop pullout by July of 2006. Nice goal, but no way Republicans or Bush would let it happen. The AMENDMENT (I get the feeling you don't realize this is an amendment to a larger military funding bill) was defeated by most Democrats and all Republicans. 27 Dems voted against it. Another AMENDMENT was introduced by Jack Reed (RI) and Carl Levin, both Dems, to begin troop redeployments immediately, but not set a firm deadline on completion. This AMENDMENT was defeated by the Republicans, but supported by all but six Democrats.

The overall military funding bill passed easily, after all 300+ amendments were dealt with.

So in other words, Hillary--like the majority of Dem senatores-- voted FOR pulling the troops out, but not for the amendment Kerry proposed. I hope that clears up your confusion, since you first said Hillary voted AGAINST Kerry's amendment, then said she voted for it, then switched back to her voting against it as though you were saying the same thing all along.

On her voting FOR the Patriot Act renewal, yes, she did, like almost every other Democrat, because they had managed to get a few minor concessions (which is all the part out of power can really do) on oversight of some of the worst violations. That was in March, before the June amendments.

Again, hope that helps you sort it out. I have to leave now. Have fun bashing me while I'm gone.

[timeforchangenow]

93. I won't even read it if you are going to talk down to me

we're on the same side bro. When I feel like being talked down to I'll read your spin job.

[timeforchangenow]

97. Ok so after reading through your sly put downs

All I see this this,

"Kerry and Feingold sponsor an amendment (this is the one you brought up first) calling for full troop pullout by July of 2006."

She voted against this amendment.

She's quoted as saything TO THIS DAY that she does not support immediate withdrawl or even a time table.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) drew boos and hisses from an audience of liberal activists yesterday as she defended her opposition to a timetable for withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, and later she received an implicit rebuke from Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) for failing to acknowledge that her support for the war was a mistake. Wednesday, June 14, 2006

I support immediate withdrawl like many Americans.

Therefore I won't vote for her.

See I'm an idiot but I can figure out that Hillary doesn't represent me and I'm a democrat. I'm tired of the spin. I suggest you stop talking down to people that really care about this and open your mind a little. I'm not perfect but damn I'm not an idiot.

[jobycom]

124. Now for the rest of the story

"Clinton won repeated applause through most of her speech, which dealt at length with domestic issues but also sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war. But the audience turned against her when, in what she called a difficult conversation, she restated her long-standing position about timetables for withdrawing U.S forces.

"I have to just say it," she began. "I do not think it is a smart strategy either for the president to continue with his open-ended commitment, which I think does not put enough pressure on the new Iraqi government, nor do I think it is smart strategy to set a date certain. I do not agree that that is in the best interest of our troops or our country."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/13/AR2006061301449.html


Hillary is opposed to the war. She wants to bring the troops home. She's supported an amendment to begin redeployment immediately. Until recently that was John Kerry's position, too. Hopefully Clinton will change hers as well, especially since the situation is deteriorating. There are some people, Clinton included, who have a problem with us shredding a nation and then leaving it dead on the road to fix itself. Her position has been that we broke it, and it would be wrong to leave it broken, to fall into worse civil war and utter chaos, as happened in Afghanistan after the USSR left (we are still seeing those consequences).

Until recently Kerry agreed with that. That's still Hillary's position, and that of many other Dems, as you can see be the lack of support Kerry's amendment received. Hopefully Clinton will change her views, as Kerry did, especially as the situatio deteriorates and it becomes clear that our troops have no hope of making a difference. But her position is very different than you represent it.

If you continue to fight against her, that's what you are fighting against--an end to the invasion, and withdrawal of the troops. Fight the real enemy, the one who created the invasion, the one who profits from the invasion, the one who is REALLY against bringing the troops home, instead of those arguing about how quickly we should bring the troops home. Until you start fighting the real evil, you are a war supporter, no matter what you claim to be.

Edited to remove two sentences that did not pertain to this discussion.

[timeforchangenow]

140. Nice spin

but not gonna do it. The no to a time table/cut and run Iraq excuse is repuke speak 101. Doesn't that piss you off that she speaks almost verbatim Repug talking point just like Liberman?

You're trying to say that not supporting Clinton will result us staying longer in Iraq?

Let me see,

1. she vote against immediate withdrawl

and then

2. doesn't agree with a time table.

but she

Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)

Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)

Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)

So, how is Hillary getting the troops home sooner?!

I see her making those same excuses as president.

Did you know that a majority of Americans are against the war now.

It's ok Hillary and your supporters, you can speak up now. :)

[timeforchangenow]

77. And what is there to spin exactly?!

I want the US out of Iraq immediately. I want a time table, she doesn't and I quote, "My bottom line is that I don't want their sons to die in vain. ... I don't believe it's smart to set a date for withdrawal. ... I don't think it's the right time to withdraw." She doesn't even talk Democratic party line. A shame and a sham.

[jobycom]

83. If you want troops out, you should be supporting the people trying to make

that happen. Hillary voted to begin redeployment of troops immediately, but opposed the deadline set by Kerry's amendment. The amendment she backed had almost full Democratic support, but lost anyway, as all bills will lose until we take back Congress.

[timeforchangenow]

86. No, your wrong

Hillary even stated that she is opposed to even a pullout of troops or even setting a time table. Bro, she's quoted saying this. Her vote doesn't matter, sure I understand that but it matter to people that support her. I supported her. I can't stand to read this " do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people."

How does this statement not condone Iraq as a crucial part of the war on terror. She basically stating that Iraq is a part of the war on terror. Now I hope we are all in agreement that Iraq really didn't have much to do with 9/11, right? right? Crickets...

[jobycom]

100. I gave you citations and specifics, you give me "Dude your wrong."

I say this with no malice, but you don't know what you are talking about. You need to read up a bit, quite a bit, on the subject, so you'll stop supporting your enemies and opposing those working for the same goals.

She is not opposed to a pullout, she's been calling for a pullout since last November. She is opposed, so far, to a firm date on the completion of the pullout, but she's also voted to begin the pullout--it was, of course, defeated.

You are going off old quotes chosen randomly at different times, not understanding how the issue has evolved in any way. I can do the same thing. I can show you Cidy Sheehan supporting Bush and calling him a compasionate man with the troops' best interest at heart. ("President Bush was sincere about wanting Freedom for Iraqis, I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith".--taken way out of context, as you are doing). I can show you Kerry, Edwards, and Clark supporting Bush and the invasion. I can show you Wesley Clark thanking God that Bush is our leader.

Knowing random quotes out of time and context does not mean you know what's going on. Study the issue further. Clinton has been calling for troop pullouts since November, and even before that she was calling for Bush to develop a better plan and exit strategy. She has been after him since the beginning on this, calling for him to use greater diplomatic efforts before the invasion, criticizing his handling of troop supplies and troop levels after the ivnasion began, criticizing Rumsfield at every misstep, criticizing the sweetheart Halliburton deals, blasting Bush for veteran assistance spending cuts. You can pull quotes out of context, as NewsMax and the Republicans are doing to smear her, to make it seem like she is calling for more troops (because she criticized Bush early on for not having enough troops to do the job properly), for opposing pullout (as you've demonstrated), etc, but her record has been ahead of the curve compared to the rest of the Party on every stage of this invasion.

There are Dems who have been ahead of the curve, who opposed Bush's lies from the beginning, who have been more forceful in their opposition. I respect them more than I do Clinton. But get your facts on her straight, she's not anything you claim she is.

[timeforchangenow]

104. Maybe so, not as much as you but I do know this...

She could have voted for an immediate withdrawl and she didn't! She agrees with a pullout but not a time table for the pullout. Whatever!

I'm a democrat and I want an immediate withdrawl of troops from the illegal occupation of Iraq.

I won't support any politican that won't support an amendment that would have done just that.

I'm not the only one that sees the hypocrisy of Hillary Clinton. You can maybe spin her actions into some kind of mass democratic collective manuver but I seriously doubt that. When her own party and voters boo her for the things she has said and for her seeming support for the war.

Others are taking a stand while she looks like she's pandering to the right.

I'm not smart, but I see it how I see it.

Clinton is too close to the right, just like Liberman was.

[patriotX]

102. ...

No offense, I'm no Hillary fan... but you did kind of just lose your argument by not actually responding to the actual points made nor their citations.

People say things... doesn't mean they always believe them. They change their minds all the time.


By the way, I'm also a very firm believer that we should reward people when they do the right thing regardless of what they've done in the past. Do you disagree that condemning Cheney was a good thing?

No? Then what're you complaining about?

[timeforchangenow]

106. Yeah it's great

but look who it's coming from. It's like a joke. She can hammer Cheney for that statement but then she can support Liberman who basically said the same thing???

I just don't get this die hard support for someone that won't vote for the immediate withdrawl from Iraq but then talk smack about the administrator of the policy that she basically supports with her votes.

It's just amazing to me. I'm not going to reward someone for bad mouthing Cheney. It anything it makes Democrats look trivial and childish.

[TwentyFive]

132. Thanks for the link. I checked out her voting record. Good enough for me!

I don't know what the dustup is about. She no conservative, and you'd have to strain to call her a moderate on anything. Left of center seems to describe her. Considering the swing voters, she has the street cred it capture their votes.

[rodeodance]

116. many here are better at attacking her than many RWer's are--sorry

to have to say this. But it irritates me.

[raindrop]

4. More like this please, Democrats

But they need to go further and attack Cheney's courage and morals. Point out that this guy got 5 deferments in Vietnam, has never seen active combat, and the Bush admin is using Iraq as a smokescreen because they're too scared to go after al Qaeda.

[gratuitous]

5. Yes indeed more comments like this

Gotta walk before you can run, and gotta lay the public perception groundwork before censure or impeachment can be a viable option. "I don't take what he says seriously anymore" is a very good statement, and a tacit challenge to the talking chuckleheads in the media: Why do you take Cheney's comments seriously? After all, if the herculean efforts of the Bush administration, all that expenditure of time, money and lives can be undone by the result of a small state minority party primary, what the hell good has it all been? Did we spend all that money and all those lives for nothing?

[Beetwasher]

13. They Should Also Remind EVeryone That He Shot Someone In The Face

Why not?

"These comments about security coming from a man who nearly blew his friends head off w/ a shotgun? Please! How can anyone take him seriouslY?"

[PATRICK]

30. I guess

we are past the crawling stage.

[livetohike]

7. Welcome to DU raindrop!

:hi:

[raindrop]

16. thank you!

I mostly lurk here, but the whole idea of the Republicans trying to co-opt the issue of national security really gets me steamed. It's nice to see the Democrats beginning to speak out about the GOP's fear tactics. They need to do it more emphatically, though, and it needs to be consistent across the country. Every elected Democratic official, and candidate too, every Democratic leaning pundit or think-tank person, needs to be out there in the media with the same refrain: Bush and Cheney have emboldened the terrorists. The Democrats will hunt down bin Laden and find him. Iraq is an absolute fiasco and we need to get out of there.

[livetohike]

60. I totally agree with you

I joined Dem. Underground before the 2004 election. I needed a place to vent and stumbled upon this site. It's been a lifesaver for my blood pressure, lol.

[calico1]

65. Welcome to DU!

:hi:

[JerseygirlCT]

128. I'd love to see that, too

What might be happening if more people like her had spoken out right from the start?

Better late than never though.

[Zorra]

Oh, yeah, right, DICK, swell job you republicans did on 9/11.

Your actions on national security really do speak for themselves: 3,000 Dead Americans, killed right here at home, because YOU were asleep at the wheel.

Or maybe you were driving drunk at the time?

Terrorists were emboldened the minute they heard that you and monkeyboy stole the 2000 election. They absolutely rejoiced when you assumed power, because they knew that republicans are so stupid, thoughtless, and careless that they would finally be able to launch a successful attack on US soil. And they did.

On your watch, DICK.

Take a vacation, and, oh yeah...please try not to shoot anybody in the face, OK?

Guns and alcohol don't mix, just like republicans and government don't mix.

[NanceGreggs]

17. WOW!!!

GREAT RANT there, Zorra!

:applause:

[gully]

44. Hear hear! 3000 dead on THEIR watch.

Dare they critique Democrats.

[Bushladen]

111. Not only

On their watch, they did it. That is why EVERYTHING is national security and that is why they are able to change laws and hold people in jail forever. I can't believe our government spent more money investigating a blow job than 9/11. And to impeach Clinton over it. While the village idiot is still in office just makes me sick. Who knows, they just might call off Nov elections because Iran sent a nuke to the US (HEE HEE) Again it's our own attacking our own. I think this whole terrorist shit is a shame.

[Bushladen]

113. See

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060810&articleId=2942


Just found this gem. Nothing is above these murderers

[Felinity]

51. Kudos, Zorra

This should be Democrat talking point #1. Every time they bring up their superior national security policy, ask them what they were doing about it on September 10. 2001.

Then ask them if there are less terrorists today than on 9/11.

[CraigHinTenn]

59. I guess they should have gotten a memo or something that ...

would have warned them that we were going to be attacked...Oh, I forgot, they did!

[underpants]

72. Now now that's not fair

as Condi testified to they weren't given the flights and the seat numbers if they had had THAT they would have moved heaven and earth.

:crazy:

Welcome to DU :hi:

[Mad_Dem_X]

62. Bravo!

I can't believe he said the terrorists would be emboldened by LIEberman's loss. :wtf: What a moronic thing to say.

[Barkley]

6. Cheney is afraid of Lamont

because Lamont is not afraid of Cheney.

That's one problem I have with Hillary: Fear

She's motivated by fear.

[hippiechick]

18. She's not motivated by fear ...

... it's POWER. Think, Lady MacBeth.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

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

[Captain Hilts]

71. So, she's like everyone else on Capitol Hill. nt

[Virginia Dare]

21. I would argue...

that Dick Cheney is much more afraid of Hillary Clinton than vice versa. I think she scares the shit out of these guys. They keep trying to slap her down and she still comes up fighting. If nothing else, I respect her for that.

[AtomicKitten]

34. indeed,

although some people have trouble giving credit when credit is due. This should be applauded and encouraged instead of disparaged and ridiculed.

We want the Democrats to fight back.

[jobycom]

50. Explain that one, using facts and not NewsMax-inspired Swiftboating

[paulk]

56. I think she's motivated by

chocolate.

Yeah, that's it.

chocolate.

or maybe it's fear of chocolate...

I can't really say why I know this

well, actually I could

but, then I'd have to kill you...

[Captain Hilts]

8. Well said. nt

[rodeodance]

9. Whow. What a BLAST--you go gal

[rodeodance]

10. nominate

[rodeodance]

11. i love it when that gal gets on cheney

[Beetwasher]

12. This Is Good, But I Would Prefer Even STRONGER Language

Calling him (or his comments) vile and despicable (for instance) would generate more coverage and would have the added bonuse of being absolutely true.

For example:

"These comments are vile and despicable and quite frankly, Cheney has no business talking security, after all this is a man who nearly blew his friends head off w/ a shotgun while hunting drunk. Please! How can anyone take him seriouslY?"

[Bretttido]

43. Keep supporting them when they make these kind of comments,

and their comments will grow in frequency and potency. way to go Hillary!

[bling bling]

14. That's right. Don't play their ridiculous games on their terms.

Not defending Democrats on absurd and obnoxious accusations is the right thing to do, BUT also pointing out that your dismissing it because Cheney is a pathetic destructive windbag is perfect.

We've already learned that we can't ignore their vile untruthful attacks, but we don't have to let them put us on the defense every time either. We can't keep backing up into a corner and trying to PROVE to them that we're NOT what they accuse us of being. Fuck them. Put THEM on the defense. THEIR the ones who have made such a mess of this country.

Good job, Hil.

[wicket]

15. Keep the attacks up Dems!

Let's see a full frontal assault on Bush, Cheney and the rest of the criminals in charge :grr:

[gratuitous]

24. If your opponents are floundering, toss them an anchor

It is time and past time to start hitting these fuckers back, and with everything we've got. They've been incompetent frauds without a serious opposition party; let's see how they cope with some real live opposition from several quarters. It will make our jobs a lot easier if we can neutralize them now, or keep them so busy defending their miserable record they don't have time to think up new strategeries for scurrilous attacks.

[timeforchangenow]

19. Blah, blah, blah...

More useless banter from Clinton. Clinton is just another turncoat Democrat, just look at her voting record to prove it. I hope to God she doesn't run for 2008. We need a real democrat not another turncoat Repub in disguise.

[Habibi]

25. Huh?

[timeforchangenow]

28. She voted no

Vote 181: S 2766: Kerry Amdt. No. 4442; To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.

Hillary Clinton's vote: NO.

Boooooooo!

[AtomicKitten]

31. she voted yes on the Levin-Reed plan

Carl Levin (D-MI) And Jack Reed (D-RI) Plan For A Phased Withdrawal From Iraq. (S. 2766, CQ Vote #182: Rejected 39-60: R 1-54; D 37-6: I 1-0, 6/22/06)

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY): "I rise in support of the Levin amendment of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor." (Sen. Hillary Clinton, Congressional Record, 6/21/06, p. S6211)

Hillary's vote: Yes.

Hooray!!!!

[timeforchangenow]

32. I'm for immidiate withdrawl, she also vote yes to extend the Patriot act

Reauthorize the U.S. Patriot Act. Clinton voted YES. March 2. HR 3199. Legislation passed Congress, signed into law by President Bush.

We need honesty, not lip service.

[timeforchangenow]

33. That was the safer route that 35 other democrats took

It's easy to be safe, we need leadership, not status quo.

[AtomicKitten]

35. it's not nothing, you know

[Laurab]

29. Another HUH?

" I don't take anything he says seriously anymore. I think that he has been a very counterproductive even destructive force in our country."

Hillary gets Press. Any dem who makes statements like this, and has them covered is ok by me. I don't necessarily want them to run for President, but I want them to attack this administration relentlessly. That was an excellent statement by Hillary.

[timeforchangenow]

36. It's just more words, any repuke

can look at her voting record and blast her right back, with "you supported many of Bush's measures". Just like they did with Kerry. Guys, we need leaders!

[Bridget Burke]

37. What do you mean by "we"....

Palefece?

[Bonescrat]

118. or more offensively

What's this "we" shit whiteman?

:silly:

[K8-EEE]

26. Hey DICK We're Not ALL Cowards That You Can Manipulate

for your own greedy power & warmongering purposes....we aren't all Freepers where you can press the same hysteria "they want to kill us" button umpteen times and we hand over our rights to you and shrubby. So basically, GO FUCK YOURSELF! Nobody's ever, ever in the history of the US been more disastrous for National Security than YOU PEOPLE. Or have you forgotten 9/11?

[closeupready]

27. I will say that while I don't like her that much,

her remarks in the story are refreshingly honest and straightforward, and it's nice to hear her sort of stick her tongue out at Cheney. :D

[smoogatz]

38. This should always be the Dem line on any statement by Cheney.

Everything he's said about Iraq, al Qaeda, the war on terror and national defense has turned not just to be wrong, but catastrophically, categorically, completely and totally wrong. What's even more disturbing is that he keeps saying the same stuff, even when it's been demonstrated over and over to be wrong. There's a word for that kind of behavior. It's called "delusional."

[Binka]

120. Cheney Is An Unmitigated MotherFucking Failure

At EVERYTHING!

[Amonester]

39. June 20, 2005: "Iraq insurgency in 'last throes'" - Darth Chenious

I don't take anything he says seriously since a long time ago (who would?)!

Iraq insurgency in 'last throes,' Cheney says
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/30/cheney.iraq/

It's So obvious: He wants MORE terra, not LESS!!
See: Bush seeks political gains from foiled plot
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2448873

If the Repukes were really strong on terra, they wouldn't want to gain(!) from it. Because logically, being really strong on terra would mean less opportunities to gain from it!!

[goclark]

40. She is finally getting it~ Now if she would start with One liners

that STICK and stop supporting these WARS, she would get my support again.

[colorado_ufo]

41. Well played.

Watch Sen. Clinton carefully. Much of what she has done/is doing is, I believe, very carefully orchestrated. Seeming to side with Republican views at times, she is gaining their attention and deflecting some of the talk-show "Shrillary" crap. She has been to Iraq. She is becoming gradually more outspoken against the administration; if she had said too much too soon, she would have suffered a McKinney fate.

This latest political grandstanding by the adminstration, widely condemned by respected media and pundits such as the NY Times, provided the perfect opportunity to fire her opening big political salvo against them. Expect to see more of this in the future, deliberately timed and well-calculated and increasing in frequency when possible.

I am neither advocating her candidacy nor opposing it, but she definitely has White House aspirations and knows what she faces running as a woman candidate against those who would fight savagely to remain in power.

[timeforchangenow]

42. That's way to look at it...

But it's not like Democrats JUST started to hate the Iraq invasion. It's not like we just started to hate the Patriot Act. Her support for Liberman was embarrasing, especially after reading this quote, "If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

Now that's a real WTF! So the precedent is set. Clinton is next guy's, if she runs we all lose and Iraq will never be fixed.

[Virginia Dare]

49. Hillary Clinton is one smart politician..

I think you're right on the money with her. She is taking their argument that she is a frothing at the mouth liberal who is weak and ineffectual as well as a hysterical banshee witch and shoving it right back down their throats.

I think if and when she decides to run for President, she will shred the competition if she chooses to. She's got money, power, intelligence, name recognition, and prestige.

As a Democrat, she is not my ideal candidate, but I fully believe she would be a damn sight better than what we've got now. I will be very interested to see how she plays this over the coming months. She seems to be getting subtly more aggressive as the days go by.

[NVMojo]

45. Very well said, Senator Clinton!

[goforit]

46. Hmmm.... So you're not gonna cower to this asshole anymore Hillary?

[Dr Fate]

47. Not bad at all- now say it more & use stronger language.

Instead of "I cant take him seriously" say "No one can believe a single word he says anymore- he has lied about this issue literally hundreds of tmes."

Not to nit-pick- Hillary is right- I just want some stronger language from all DEMS- something that will stick to the ribs.

[Beetwasher]

55. Yup, Stronger Language=Better Headlines

My suggestion from my posts above:

"These comments are vile and despicable and quite frankly, Cheney has no business talking security, after all this is a man who nearly blew his friends head off w/ a shotgun while hunting drunk. Please! How can anyone take him seriouslY?"

[Dr Fate]

68. It's true- you have to bait the media/GOP.

If you use soft language, they wont feel the need to respond and it wont stay in the echo chamber.

Otherwise, I say Hillary is on the right track with this.

[jobycom]

52. Other than not using enough profanity, that's pretty damn good.

"I don't take anything he says seriously anymore."

[WatchWhatISay]

53. hmm. . . maybe I could vote for her

give me more

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. Go Hillary!

Last week Rummy and now this week Cheney. It's about time.

[stepnw1f]

57. Hey Cheney, 9-11 Happened on Your Watch... so STFU!

You failed big time on that day, and you are a failure now in the Middle East.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

63. "I don't take anything he says seriously anymore."

:applause: Thank you, Hillary. I agree.

[Captain Hilts]

70. That's a GREAT line. No one should believe a word he says. nt

[truthisfreedom]

64. and Hillary, I would have added "The arrest of further airline terrorists

by UK officials during the past week are plain evidence that the administrations failed policies are generating MORE terrorists, not protecting us from them. This administration failed to protect us from 9-11, failed to get jet fighters off the tarmac while we watched planes flying hundreds of miles toward NYC, and failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina with five full days advanced warning. Vice President Cheney's only remaining political resource is fear. He couldn't give the shootdown order when he had the opportunity to protect America, but he certainly knows how to drink beer and shoot down his friends."

[Bretttido]

94. Haha, great mini-rant

[Guaranteed]

67. National leadership- THANK you, Hillary.

We need people that the media will pay attention to to say things like this.

Nice job.

[w4rma]

69. Good! (nt)

[genieroze]

74. See, even the pukes are mad Lieberman lost. I knew he was a DINO.

He kissed * ass in just about evey vote. He should really be a rethugnaCON.

[timeforchangenow]

76. That's it! Clinton is next...

Time for some real leadership. Feingold where you at my friend. Time to clean house in the democratic party. No turncoats in 2008.

[AtomicKitten]

81. good luck with that

At 79% to 13%, I'm sure she's shaking in her boots. Good luck with that pipe dream.

Your purity purge crusade, as unenlightened as it is, is nonetheless amusing.

[timeforchangenow]

84. Have fun with 8 more years of war then

and 8 more years of whining. How can you guys support someone that doesn't even vote for what you believe in? I'm not the smartest or the most enlightened but I'm not stupid either. Hillary supports the war in Iraq and you guy's don't see the huge problem with this?!

[AtomicKitten]

88. Now you're just being silly

Unless, of course, your extrapolated prediction of warmongering includes all the Democratic Senators who voted yes on the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)

[timeforchangenow]

90. Here's your non silly answer

I'll quote her, "I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately.

She then voted against an immediate withdrawl from Iraq.

So

how is she gonnna get us out of Iraq if she thinks that we shouldn't withdrawl? And I'll quote, "if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people."

Did you notice this part help fight terrorism

So, Hillary at this time still sees Iraq as a part of the war on terror? Good god I hope not. I really, really hope not.

Just hear me out and don't write me off a silly. I really think she's a bad choice for the party, allow me to express my views on it. Please.

[AtomicKitten]

96. you're are entitled to think whatever you want

But there is a problem with your reasoning.

(1) First up is Ned Lamont.

Ned Lamont Statement on the Reed/Levin Amendment
http://nedlamont.com/news/517/ned-lamont-statement-on-the-reedlevin-amendment

“I support the Levin-Reed Amendment on U.S. Policy in Iraq, and I urge Senator Lieberman to do the same.

(2) Secondly Republican Chafee along with all Dems except Bill Nelson (FL), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR), Mary Landrieu (LA), Mark Dayton (MN) and, of course, Joe Lieberman voted YES on the Reed-Levin bill for a phased withdrawal.

So, I ask again. Are you prepared to spread your displeasure to Lamont and all Dems I mentioned above that supported the Reed-Levin bill (and, of course, those that did not)?

My point is you are singling out HRC unfairly and unjustifiably. If she's a warmonger, by your reasoning so are they.

[Voltaire99]

134. That will do as a good place to start.

Plenty of right wingers on that list. Who's first?

[Qutzupalotl]

80. "A spokeswoman for reality said the vice president's comments

on using national security failures for political gain speak for the vice president."

[alvarezadams]

82. Will she censure Lieberman

for saying basically the same thing?

[timeforchangenow]

85. Beautiful!!!

She can stump for Liberman who said basically the same thing?! What gives? Enlightening post of the century by Alverezadams. Great job man, expose the turncoats man. Love it!!! Oh the hypocrisy!!! Time for the democratic party to clean house! Let it begin!

[AtomicKitten]

89. pssssst -- Wrong Clinton.

Sorry to interrupt the Clinton-bashing with the truth.

[timeforchangenow]

91. If this isn't an endorsement then I don't know what is

I've known Joe Lieberman for more than thirty years. I have been pleased to support him in his campaign for re-election, and hope that he is our party's nominee.

Hillary Clinton
not

Bill

[AtomicKitten]

98. That statement does not constitute "stumping" for him as you alleged.

Bill did that.

Simply releasing that statement was a courtesy to a man that served 18 years in the Senate. Period. She said she would support the winner of the primary, and was one of the first to do so with a $5,000 donation to his campaign. Just as she promised.

Again, I think you are being overly harsh and unfair to her in particular.

You are more than welcome to oppose her, I just have a problem with the harsh, unfair, and often untruthful accusations you are throwing out against her.

Hey, I won't vote for anybody in the primary that voted yes on the IWR, so I understand your displeasure.

[timeforchangenow]

101. Ok so I used the wrong word stumping. Ok read this quote by Liberman

"If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England. It will strengthen them and they will strike again."

She endorsed this by saying that she hoped he won the primary.

Do you agree with Liberman?

You agree then that Iraq is fighting terrorism?

Hillary states that Iraq is a crucial part in the war on terror.

Republicans believe this.

I'm surprised at the closed mindedness of this forum. I thought democrats were against the war.

[AtomicKitten]

103. we aren't closed-minded -- just sticklers for truth and accuracy

Again you are extrapolating two different statements and situations. Lieberman is an assclown. He voted 'no' on both bills for withdrawal from Iraq. That right there answers your question.

Bush has made Iraq a terrorist haven; it wasn't one beforehand. He has taken out the only element that stymied Iran which I believe is precisely what the PNAC boys wanted to create more chaos and war in the Middle East.

It would behoove you to step back a bit and not view this so emotionally (although I of course understand and share your dismay). You are unfortunately mixing up facts that really are germaine to a good overview.

I want the US out of Iraq immediately, but the Democrats are faced with daunting task of untangling Bush's foreign policy fiasco, and there is no easy answer. I, for one, am glad that most Dems voted for one or the other plan for withdrawal. I take that as a good sign. And that's the problem because you view it negatively. Not that those votes mean a damn thing until the Dems take back Congress in November.

Give 'em a chance. It would probably be good for your health. Peace.

[timeforchangenow]

107. She really did want Liberman to win

She said that before he lost. She gave the $5000 to Lamont AFTER he won. She has to support whomeve is in there. That's true and accurate. I'm not far off.

I'm not the only one in the world that see the hypocricy of Hillary Clinton even Kerry made a comment about it. Ok I'm just a crazy nut job but when American votes, you'll see the problems I'm seeing.

I'll still be on the street getting the vote out. I hope you guys do too.

But from what I'm hearing and seeing. We don't stand a chance.

[AtomicKitten]

109. she's not a hypocrite at all

Again you are not being fair. Don't forget Lieberman was the Dem VP nominee in 2000. He goes way back with most of the Dems in Congress. Is it so difficult for you to understand professional courtesy? She did not stump for him.

And Kerry is running in 2008 so his mud-slinging at HRC is just being bitchy. I find him a bit of a hypocrite when it comes to the war on Iraq. But I digress.

More importantly, she said - AND RIGHTFULLY SO - that she would honor the will of the voters and support the winner of the primary. That was not ascertained - doh! - until AFTER the primary. You do understand that, right? That's not hypocritical at all. In fact, she did precisely what we would expect her to do, support the winner of the primary.

She released a statement yesterday asking Lieberman to search his soul about running as an independent (too busy right now to look it up for you), stopping short of actually asking him to get out of the race. Does she get any credit for coming at him questioning his decision to bolt the party? No?

That's what happens when you have a set-in-stone agenda. You are simply not willing to yield to the facts and the truth about situations. If you start out hating someone, nothing else matters. I am by nature an analytic person. I would implode if I wasn't able to carefully weigh situations. But that's me.

I hope you find some peace; your anxiety seems to be getting the better of you. Gotta run.

[FlaGranny]

99. My own personal way or the highway, huh?

Just love posts from people who think they have all the answers, but don't even know the right questions.

[Spirochete]

87. Good for her

Democrats should all be speaking like this. Neocons have gotten away too long with this "democrats love terrorism" bullshit.

[MadJohnShaft]

95. She makes headlines with this kind of stuff, we should be thankful

otherwise I don't see how the other side of the story gets told

[MODemocrat]

105. You Go Hillary, put that ramrodding terrorist in his place

Dick Cheney is so close to the terrorist groups, he even has a fundraiser on the strength of the
administration's scare tacttics. What a worthless human being the vice president is!!

Nice going Senator Clinton: :toast:

[timeforchangenow]

108. 79% of Dems nationally glad Lieberman lost

Hillary supported Liberman. Come on all you Clinton supporters wake up or the revolution is gonna leave you behind!!! If you don't then 8 more years of war!

[AtomicKitten]

110. Jesus H. Christ

..... whatever.

You are hopelessly beyond reason.

[BigDDem]

138. Nader '08!!!!

5th times the charm!!!

[OregonDem]

112. I thought Boosh said elections helped to get rid of terrorism....

now Cheney says the Connecticut election helped the terrorists. Could it be that they are pulling this stuff out of their asses in order to help the Republicans?

[lovuian]

114. Cheney has been using Fear to keep America chained

his name is so symbolic

[NoodleyAppendage]

115. Someone had some back surgery recently...must be nice to stand upright.

I'm liking it, but count me as skeptical. If I were a betting man, I would double-down on Hillary making a more concillatory statement in the next few days to follow her pattern of "playing both sides of the fence."

J

[rodeodance]

117. Cheney's reply from his office is belittling.

[MindMatter]

119. Can't believe what I've been reading here

Mrs. Clinton and her husband have been two of the greatest enablers of the Neocons. From their positions of high power, they rarely raised the slightest word of criticism while the Bush regime was stripping us of our rights and our future. I challenge anybody to show me a single statement that either Clinton has made in the past 5 years that clearly reflected our progressive traditions without equivocating so much as to become completely meaningless.

It is only now that she picks us the idea that true Democrats far and wide are absolutely pissed at the acquiesence that she and her kind have displayed that she starts to change her tune. She can be the next one in front of the firing squad (figuratively speaking, of course) for all I care.

[timeforchangenow]

121. I agree

Feingold and many others have basically committed political suicide trying to make a difference while Clinton took the easy votes and the easy quotes to please both sides of the fence. For those of you that seem to think it's some kind of adept political manuvering, I hate to say it but it is, it's call C.Y.A. Cover your a#$ and that unfortunately is all it is. It's not surprising that she would say this now as it seems that the lasndscape of the democratic party is change to the more aggressive, proactive party, i.e. Liberman out, Lamont in. I say keep it going. It's needed if we are to have any success in 08' Hillary is not the answer. I do apologize for raiding this thread with my anti-Clinton crusade. You guys are stoked on her statement, that's cool. Sorry.

[kdpeters]

122. Don't look for heroes in presidential hopefuls

That's the last place you'd find them. Perhaps in retrospect, we may appreciate them more than we do during their drive to get there. But I've given up expecting someone with courage, principles, or any value greater than ambition could win the Presidency.

Bill was a disappointment as well, but life was pretty darn good when he was president and we had respect and admiration from most of the world. He was good at governing and great at representing this country abroad. So too would Hillary be. I once was as cynical as you, but I had no idea a president could be as destructive, as dangerous as Bush has proven to be. Now I realize it matters who is president. I'm not looking for a hero, an inspiration, or a leader of any kind. If I have to accept an ambitious, egotistical, equivocating politician to get a decent governor and diplomat, so be it. At least I know she'll do what she thinks the people want rather than deceive the people into accepting what she wants.

I can't see me voting for her in the primaries, but should she get the nomination, I can't see me doing anything less than everything I have to see she's elected. This country can't afford another Republican president.

[MindMatter]

123. You may ultimately be right, but I'm not willing to accept that yet

On the right, I see a whole series of successful politicians who articulated a set of principles they believed in. We certainly don't agree with most of the principles that people like Reagan, Gingritch, and the two Bushes have voiced, but they have advocated for those principles loudly and consistently. Reagan promised his voodoo economics and delivered economic ruin on the country. Dubya promised to be an international cowboy and delivered a ruinous foreign policy. Gingritch promised to usher in a wave of corporatism through his Contract, and he did exactly that, paving the way for the 21st century fascists.

The really key point is that when you poll the public and ask them questions about those principles as they impact the average American, there is really very little support for any of the Republican principles. But the public keeps electing these schmucks nonetheless.

I put it to you that Republicans have been elected largely BECAUSE the have an agenda and the Democrats don't. With apologies to Waxman, Kennedy, Levin, Frank, Rangel, Byrd, and 4 or 5 others, the Dems are best known for NOTHING -- for their unwillingness to take a clear position on anything, and I offer Hillary and Kerry as exhibits A and B. No Democrat will be elected to the Presidency until he or she articulates a clear agenda, a vision that the average public can understand. It is breathtakingly easy to sell any agenda to this moronic public, as we have seen with Iraq. But you must sell them something. It will not do to try to take the middle ground, avoiding every point of the slightest controversy.

Forget election fraud. That is a swing of 1 or 2 percent. We'd do the same thing if we were in their position, as the likes of Mayor Daley have famously done in the past. The real swing -- the 25% swing -- is the agenda gap. The GOP has a ruinous agenda -- and that beats the guys (and gals) with no agenda every day of the week.

[AtomicKitten]

125. forget election fraud?

WOW, JUST WOW.

Joseph Stalin said, "Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything."

An excerpt from an article I wrote in 2002:

"Bart at www.bartcop.com compiled some Magical Numbers courtesy of Diebold for midterm election 2002. Of the eight "upsets," ALL went for the Republicans. In the Georgia Senate race, Democrat Max Cleland was up five points November 4th, yet the results from the Diebold electronic voting machines recorded a Chambliss win in a 13-point pro-Bush swing. In the Colorado Senate race, Democrat Tom Strickland was up 5 points November 4th, yet Diebold recorded an Allard win in a 14-point pro-Bush swing. Magic? Florida voters complained bitterly that their votes for McBride were registering for Bush on the electronic voting machines. The AP released a report that in Texas, three Republicans defeated their opponents in local races, each garnering PRECISELY 18,181 votes. The odds of that happening are astronomical. More Republican Magic?"

I assure you it is more than "a swing of 1 or 2 percent."

DU has a wonderful section - ELECTION REFORM - where you can get all the information you are clearly lacking on the subject of election fraud. The problem is pervasive and pandemic. It would behoove you to read up on it.

On edit: Election fraud is NOT "something we would do if we were in their position." Jeez.

[MindMatter]

126. We can debate whether it is 2% or 5%

My point is that the American public, when polled on specific issues, is solidly in favor of the progressive positions across the board. This is true whether we are talking of education, health care, the environment, social security, corporate governance, and now even foreign policy. On issue after issue, the public is where we are by vast majorities -- usually 25% or more.

While election froud is a concern, it is not election fraud that has caused us to lose 7 national elections. It is our inability to put forward leaders who have enough backbone to stand up for the positions that Americans overwhelmingly favor anyway. That is really sad. It is not as if we are asking them to stand up for unpopular positions. I am certainly in favor of efforts to fight back against Diebold and company. But that is not priority number one. If we could completely eliminate all election fraud, we will still lose every national election as long as we run spineless wonders like the Hillary and Kerry.

[AtomicKitten]

127. it is much more that 5%, but that would be arguing semantics

And although I thought Kerry was tragically ineffectual, I find HRC anything but spineless (polarizing, yes). However, I much prefer the new improved Al Gore as the horse I'm backing in 2008.

We do agree on the general point of needing a strong, populist message and agenda articulated in a no nonsense fashion. I do believe the election of Ned Lamont jettisons us in that direction, keeping in mind, of course, that there needs to be an element of understanding and tolerance for the fact that more moderate Dems are required in more moderate states in order to be competitive. Some here don't believe that hard cold reality, but a Ned Lamont would sink like a stone in Tennessee.

Have a great day.
AK

[AZBlue]

133. Do you think he'll run??

I'd love that but I wonder what it will take to move him to actually run again. And, I can't blame him for not wanting to go through that - and will have even more respect for him if he does, since he knows first hand what he will have to go through.

(On a lighter note - did you see him on SNL?? I'm watching reruns now - I either tape or watch them EVERY single Saturday now so I can get that on tape. I laughed my ass off!!)

[JerseygirlCT]

129. Would you rather she hadn't said anything? nt

[Voltaire99]

135. Shhhhhhh

You're supposed to pretend she's a progressive while averting your eyes whenever she bashes abortion, supports the illegal Iraq war, "protects" the flag and declares her support for Israel's latest exercise in civilian destruction.

Didn't you get the memo?

[vkobaya]

130. True! True! True!

[i]terrorists would be emboldened by the results of
Connecticut's Democratic Primary.[/i]

It's true! Cheney is speaking out, isn't he? The Bush/Cheney
regime are the leading terrorists in the world. 

[ryanmuegge]

131. Sweet Jesus

What Cheney says is totally fucking ridiculous, of course. Let's put things into perspective, though: the guy won the right to RUN in an election and be a viable candidate(let's face it, third-party candidates have no chance). People act as if the guy's already won.

I'm sure Osama's in his cave and following the results of Connecticut's elections very closely.

[Voltaire99]

136. Q: How do you tell Hillary apart from Dick Cheney?

A: Hillary knows the words to some Fleetwood Mac songs.

[saigon68]

137. LOL that's about it

She is however shrewder

[missTheBigDog]

139. She is smart...

politically. As someone mentioned earlier, she is carefully planning for her future run and laying out the groundwork slowly. I am not a big supporter though. For one, I don't like the fact that she hasn't been firm on Iraq. I didn't like Kerry for that matter either. She needs to stop this nonsense of trying to please both sides. Heck, even Mr. KKK Byrd voted against giving Bush authorithy to attack Iraq!