"I trust this White House"

[JNelson6563]

All this talk of a WH run by Hillary Clinton....it's all so interesting, isn't it? Even moreso is how the HC supporters are working overtime to demonize anyone who doesn't support her potential candidacy, push polls and everything!

There are reasons not to support such a candidacy, legitimate reasons. For instance, I remember so very, very well the day the Senate voted on the IWR. I'm sure many here watched that day and there was suspense surrounding the votes of many of our Senators. While we experienced many disappointments that day IMO Hillary was the absolute biggest one of them all.

Not only did she vote to support Little Boots' Iraqi adventure, she did some world class sucking up to the reich-wing (no doubt to show how "strong" and "non-partisan" she could be for her future Presidential run). As she stood there proclaiming "I trust this White House" I sat there thinking of 9/11. What happened to "What did the President know and when did he know it?"

Yes, Hillary trusted Little Boots and his gang on the topic of war with Iraq.

This is either the clearest example of Special Kind of Stupid we have to date or, worse yet, this reveals a willingness to do anything, anything!! to be part of the Kool Kids Krowd.

So, before you go and accuse a non-Hillary supporter of being sexist, afraid of strong women, uninformed, or just plain stupid, remember: Some of us have paid close attention to the Jr. Senator from New York and haven't been particularly impressed.

Julie

[xchrom]

1. no more bushes -- no more clintons.

[Justice]

2. I agree with that.

[Graybeard]

5. There will be no coronation...

...in Jan. '09 

[donheld]

17. I might support Kate Clinton

:D

[Jawja]

42. Bingo.

We need new blood.

[Cha]

59. We need Fresh blood..not

the triangulators..and, of course, "Stay outta the bushes!"

[ChiciB1]

65. Touche'.... n/t

[AtomicKitten]

3. It would be nice to be able to have an opinion

that is strong and reasoned without being bitch-slapped by someone in opposition. You have stated your case in such a manner and I respect you for it. I agree that her position on Iraq makes it impossible to support her in the primary.

[JNelson6563]

6. Civil discussion, imagine!!!

I think it is so very sad that some here feel the need to demonize those with different opinions from their own.

It's my great hope that kind of crap willnot be permitted throughout the whole primary season, though I'm mystified as to why it's being allowed right now.

Julie

[Clark2008]

10. And don't you just love being called sexist when you've done

nothing - as a female - but fight for women's rights since you were old enough to care?

Some of us don't like Hillary for her actions in her own right, decisions she made - and not her gender. It's quite the antithesis of sexism.

[JNelson6563]

16. That's the thing

The way the "discussion" is shaping up here on DU, it's almost like her supporters are laying the groundwork for any and all non-Hillary supporters to be categorized into some demonized area or other. Obviously they are sexist, fear strong women or whatever pap they assign.

It couldn't possible be due to legitmate greivances, no. It's something nefarious!

Ugh.

Julie

[timtom]

4. This needs to be kicked and recommended!

[luckyleftyme2]

8. RIGHT AFTER BUSH IS SENTENCED

I SAY WE DON'T FORGET THE REAL AGENDA: THE PEOPLE SPOKE,THEY WANT NO MORE OF IRAQ OR WASTREL PRESIDENTS LIKE THE REAGAN,BUSH SENIOR AND OF COURSE BUSH JUNIOR.
WE CAN'T NAIL REAGAN BUT WE CAN LEAVE A LEGACY FOR ALL TO SEE BY BRINGING CHARGES AGAINST THE OTHER TWO FOR WAR CRIMES AND FRAUD.
REMEMBER THE OLE SAYING THE "BUCK STOPS HERE" AND IF IT'S FRAUDGELENT SPENDING YOUR THE PRES.

[ixion]

7. when Hillary was first elected, I had high hopes for her...

she has failed miserably to live up to those hopes, and voting for the IWR was the final clincher. I can support no person who supported the illegal invasion of Iraq.

[w4rma]

9. From what I can tell the only thing she has done with her power is to promote herself. (nt)

[JNelson6563]

11. That's been my take too.

And the era of that kind of behavior needs to end.

Julie

[MadHound]

12. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

It is amazing how almost immediately after Hillary made her announcement this board is flooded with her supporters, shouting down opposition, rationalizing away her bad decisions, demonizing her opponents on this board. Geez, if this is what it's like now, I can imagine how bad it's going to get over the next two years.

Sorry, but I don't vote for so called leaders with the blood of innocents on their hands. Nor do I reward employees for failing to do their job, which is exactly what Hillary did with her IWR vote.

[GeorgeGist]

13. Triangulation or...

strangulation. Only difference is the beginning. The end is the same.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Frank Cannon]

15. When repug pundits in the MSM stop singing her praises 24/7...

I MIGHT take her seriously as a candidate.

Otherwise I'm just listening to Brer Rabbit pleading for me not to throw him in the briar patch.

[mtnsnake]

18. Could you supply the link where Hillary said "I trust this White House"?

Thanks, I just want to read it in the full context, instead of by itself as a random piece of babble-rama.

[JNelson6563]

20. Witnessed it first hand

Perhaps if you watched the Senate in action on C-Span occassionally (or perhaps catch some of it at their web-site archives) you might be a bit more informed.

Check out the archives from the IWR, that's where you will find that and other sickening quotes from Hillary as well as others.

Julie

PS Dare I hope you might be honest ennough to concede that if you had heard such a thing first hand it might have stuck in your head too? It was a rather unforgettable moment.

[mtnsnake]

22. Witnessed it first hand. What a flaming crock. You got it from somebody on DU

who posted that same nonsense earlier, maybe yesterday.

Wow, talk about dishonesty.

[JNelson6563]

24. She talked about her time in the WH

and said she knew what it was like (as well she should since those she supported with this vote had participated in a hate campaign against her and Pres. Clinton for many years!) to have not had support of Congress and she wasn't going to do that to THIS WH.

Yes Hillary, right or wrong, stand with the WH so that when you are president you can demand the same. Ugh.

I feel very sorry for those who cannot see the political posturing this war vote was for Hillary and many others.

Julie

[SOS]

31. From the floor speech 10/10/02

"I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war"

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

[libneo]

34. This clearly vindicates Hillary. (nt)

[SOS]

39. "I will take the President at his word"

She stated, on the Senate floor, that she will take Bush at his word.
She trusted him to "avoid war".

vindicate: show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified.
Was Hillary's trust in Bush proven to be right, reasonable or justified?

[libneo]

43. she didn't say she "trusted the white house". She is vindicated. (nt)

[Morgana LaFey]

37. How old ARE you, anyway?

I really would like to know.

[mtnsnake]

51. Sorry, I'm already taken. Now run along.

[Morgana LaFey]

66. Oh, you're taken, all right

Mostly MIStaken.

[lillilbigone]

58. Why do you care?

[libneo]

25. Please don't lie!!! (nt)

[ms liberty]

19. Exactly right...K&R n/t

[dapper]

21. Gore first...

I would be more inclined to vote for Gore at this point than Hillary. I see Gore as more of a man with a plan, Hillary tends to flip flop.

Although I say that, it really depends on who the candidates are. I would vote for Hillary but she is not my top choice.

Dapper

[nashville_brook]

30. here here! -- we need EXPERIENCE in the next white house

not celebrity.

anyone remember HC's health care reform fiasco? aside from the IWR and other policy positions, she's weak in terms of "getting things done" on a large scale. let her continue to learn the ropes in the senate and lets throw our support to the person who DESERVES the white house and who has the gravitas to start cleaning-up the mess left behind.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BlueJac]

26. No on Hillary........

I don't trust her.

[SaveElmer]

27. Like the aggrieved RW Christians in this country...

Who claim they are persecuted because the 10% of this country that is not Christian doesn't agree with their turning this country into a theocracy, the 90% of those on this board that don't support Hillary are just apoplectic with the 10% of us that don't agree with them!

I'm sure you will condemn with equal fervor the accusations made that Hillary supporters are corporate whores, DINO's, closet Republicans, "Warmonger supporters" etc etc etc...

[JNelson6563]

33. Unfair characterizations are bad

no matter where they originate or the intended target.

Julie

[Skittles]

28. what's really bad is she was F****ING LYING

she thought about her career over the interests of America - yes, it f***ing SUCKED

[Morgana LaFey]

29. Yep, she and most of the others as well

Had their sights firmly on their perceived careers. Bah!

[SaveElmer]

32. So you believe then...

That Max Cleland, a man who had three limbs blown off in VietNam, and was the admin of the Vet Administration under PResident Clinton, knowlingly decided to sacrifice the lives of thousands of American soldiers...to cover his ass?

Is that what you are saying?

[Morgana LaFey]

36. Gee, I don't remember mentioning Max by name

What I'm saying is that for MOST of them, maybe even all of them for all I know, the political calculus about their careers (getting re-elected and/or running for higher office) was a gigantic and primary motivation for their votes.

And yes, they got mislead, but it was also their jobs to KNOW better -- knowing better was entirely possible, as all of DU and huge swaths of the rest of the internet proved.

[SaveElmer]

55. Well...

Instead of making blanket accusations that folks were willing to tolerate the death of thousands of soldiers simply to further their political careers...why don't you tell us who you think falls into that category...

And of course you will be able to provide some form of evidence for your assertion correct?

[mtnsnake]

61. Ever notice how once you ask for evidence, the propagandists disappear?

Funny about that, eh.

Good posts, btw, Elmer.

[Morgana LaFey]

67. It wasn't blanket --

and I believe my take on this was well enough understood AT THE TIME, even, that it doesn't need "some form of evidence," which of course isn't LIKELY anyway since that would take a confession from someone. We're talking motivations, after all, and there's not usually a paper trail on those.

I think it was very clear for most of our Democratic Senators who voted for the damn thing, and especially their glowing Senate Floor speeches. It was self-evident at the time, for those who are discerning and can read people.

YMMV, and I don't give a damn. But you're not going to either (a) shut me up with your faux, illogical (and bullying, I might add) challenges, or (b) shame me into trying to run around and "PROVE" anything to you or anyone else, or (c) change my mind.

[SaveElmer]

78. So..

You just assume some number of Democratic Senators were willing to throw away the lives of United States Soldiers to further their political careers...

You make this astounding claim saying it is self-evident without providing evidence, and refuse to say who among those senators behaved that way, even though it was self-evident.

Very compelling!

btw I am not trying to shut you up or change your mind...I'm trying to get you to provide some compelling logic behind this statement, some logical information to back up your assertion. Apparently you cannot.

[Le Taz Hot]

38. "Max Cleland,

a man who had three limbs blown off in VietNam." Dude, did you write a macro for that? If you haven't you should seeing as how it's in so many of your posts -- it'll save you some keystrokes.

[SaveElmer]

41. I never get a straight answer...

Which doesn't surprise me!!!

[libneo]

44. other than their hatred toward Hillary, they have nothing useful to say. (nt)

[Morgana LaFey]

68. That's not what you want anyway

You want to twist words and create chaos and havoc, not have a real conversation with "straight answers."

If you want "straight answers," you have to ask reasonable, logical questions that are intended for real dialog, not just challenges and put downs and defeats of your debate partners. Again, that's not what you want, from what I can see -- either in this thread or a few other threads I've seen you post.

[mtnsnake]

70. That is simply not true,

not any of it. SaveElmer has been around a lot longer than you have, and the things you said definitely don't apply to SaveElmer one iota. You should only hope that you're as level headed as SaveElmer is when you've been here that long.

[SaveElmer]

79. I am trying to get...

Folks here who are accusing Democratic Senators of voting for the IWR to further their political careers, knowing as they say, that it was obvious to all what this would lead to, that is a war in Iraq leading to American deaths,to take responsibility for the logical consequence of those claims...

You claim Democratic Senators should have known what would happen since it was so obvious to the rest of us. Yet they did the politically expedient thing to do. The logoical conclusion is then, that they were willing to tolerate a certain number of American and Iraqi deaths to cover their asses.

These posters are very bold in their initial claim, and turn mealy mouthed when it comes to the consequences of those claims!

[area51]

35. Offshoring.

I believe H. Clinton has also supported the offshoring of American jobs.

[JeremyWestenn]

40. No one is demonizing anyone.

I seriously stopped reading after that statement. You people are the one throwing damn fits.

[JNelson6563]

48. Well thanks for the kick anyway

:toast: I appreciate your help with the "damn fit". heh

[JeremyWestenn]

83. ^_^

<3

[dionysus]

45. kick

[wyldwolf]

46. I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.

"...if Bush presents what he considered to be persuasive evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction, he would support military action, even without U.N. authorization.”

“if the U.N. in the end chooses not to enforce its own resolutions, then the U.S. should give Saddam 30 to 60 days to disarm, and if he doesn’t, unilateral action is a regrettable, but unavoidable, choice.”

Guess who?

[thingfisher]

47. Mrs. Clinton would do more to

re-unite a badly damaged party unity among the Republicans. It would rally many of the religious right who have become disenchanted with the Bush presidency, to support anyone who would run against Mrs. Clinton as the lesser of two evils.
Any Democrat who can't see how divisive and damageing her candidacy would be to the cause of turning America around is naive and perhaps a bit obsessive.
Democrats need to find a candidate who will at least be palatable to a large segment of former Republican voters who had been taken in by the Bush rhetoric. We need to defuse the hot button isues in the so-called culture wars in order to focus everyones attention on fixing the awful damage that has been done to our nations economy, and standing in the world.
Who this may be , I do not know.

[wyldwolf]

49. take a guess

[SOS]

60. Maybe this guy?

February 2003: After Secretary of State Colin Powell made his case for war at the United Nations, most other leading Democrats applauded. Senator Joe Biden called Powell's case "very powerful and, I think, irrefutable." Senator John Kerry called it "compelling." Only Dean dissented. "I heard little today that leads me to believe that there is an imminent threat warranting unilateral military action by the United States against Iraq," he said.

DEAN: You know, my words are not always precise, but my meaning is very, very clear. Iraq was not an imminent threat to the US. We had successfully contained Iraq for 12 years with no-fly zones. They had virtually no Air Force to speak of. It turned out they did not have the weapons of mass destruction that people thought they did, myself included. It turned out that much of what the president told us was not so. I believe that Saddam Hussein's removal from power is good. But I also believe that the way to have done it was to do it through the UN, which is why I opposed the president's war in Iraq from the beginning.
Source: Democratic 2004 Primary Debate at St. Anselm College Jan 22, 2004

"The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is wrong for America, and sets a dangerous precedent. So many who supported the war now say that they are opposed to the doctrine of preemption. Then why did they vote for this preemptive war? I opposed the President's war on Iraq, I continue to stand against his policy of preemption."
Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003

The 2002 comments by Dean were contingent on whether "Bush presents persuasive evidence". In February 2003 Dean said he did not think Bush presented enough to warrant an invasion. That was a month before the attack. Trying to paint Dean as an Iraq war supporter is absurd.

[wyldwolf]

76. so he's a walking contradiction?

[SOS]

82. No. He's been perfectly consistent for years.

Dean in 2002 said he would back an invasion to disarm Hussein IF two conditions were met:

1. Bush provides "persuasive proof" that Iraq is an a clear and imminent danger to the security of the US.
2. That an invasion only take place with a UN SC resolution backing it.

Neither of these conditions were met and in February 2003, before the attack, Dean came out against it.

Where's the contradiction?

Do those Democrats who voted "yes" and have since wisely renounced their vote as a mistake also qualify as "walking contradictions" ?

[SaveElmer]

53. They aren't guessing cause they won't like the answer...

May have to put this in a seperate thread!!!

[lillilbigone]

56. Howard Dean. nt

[lillilbigone]

50. Why did you invent a quote from 4 years ago to attack Hillary

when you could use her actual position, now, to more effectively discredit her?

[mtnsnake]

52. The mods should erase or lock this thread for an obvious lie about Hillary

Just like I said earlier in this thread, your thread title is nothing but GAR...BAAAAAAAAAAAGE. What a lame attempt at smearing Hillary for something she never said. You must be proud. HAHAHAHAHA!!!

[AtomicKitten]

54. I should have been more discerning

and asked to see a link.

I apologize.

[Retrograde]

57. no problems with the house

it's the building's occupants I don't trust :)

[ruggerson]

62. Intellectually dishonest

She never uttered those words.

And see post #95 for my response to the rest of your misstatements.

[LittleClarkie]

63. Gotta link to her saying that?

or no.

[TwilightZone]

64. Curious - when did she say that?

Do you have a link or is your "quote" actually a paraphrase?

[IndianaGreen]

69. Our 2004 Presidential ticket has expressed regret about their IWR vote

and have offered proposals to extricate our nation from the Iraq quagmire.

If Kerry and Edwards are men enough to admit they made a mistake to vote for IWR, why can't Hillary admit she also made a mistake? The obvious answer is that Hillary shares Lieberman's views about the war in Iraq. Is either that, or she is a moral coward.

[intaglio]

71. I think the republicans want her to run

Because they have the whispering campaign already planned and it doesn't have to be true - just nasty

They will be a whispering about Whitewater
there will be the whispers about "convenient" deaths
how Bill needed to have Monica ease his tension
talk of how trusted real estate lawyers are
how you don't need another "war free" president - or first husband

[puebloknot]

72. Julie: Judy here, and I second the motion

I'll sit on my hands at home if Hillary is the Dem candidate. I had great compassion for her when she was going through the firestorm of the impeachment, standing by her man. I cheered her on when she had the courage to name the game: "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy."

And then, by golly, she morphed into something I don't even recognize. Her vote for the war did it for me.

Now, since we're letting it all hang out here....I'm watching Nancy Pelosi with great interest to see just how much, whether, she is going to cozy up to the Republicans who have taken our country so far down the road to tyranny.

[JNelson6563]

74. It's something, isn't it?

I'm tellin' ya, there was no stronger Hillary supporter than at one time. Then she went to the Senate and every single move was designed to help her run for Pres. Including her total CYA speech giving with her IWR vote and the fact that she could even take Little Boots at his word.

So pathetic. After that sickening speech I felt physically ill. I have to wonder about those who were unaffected by it. Apparently we all have different standards.

:shrug:

Julie

[IndianaGreen]

75. Didn't you get the memo? It's supposed to be a Hillary coronation!

Carville wants to dispense with the nomination process and with Howard Dean. Now, get in line behind the rest of the Hilbots!

:-)

[JNelson6563]

77. It's something, isn't it?

I cannot believe there are still so many of them! I watched that speech that accompanied her IWR vote and felt sick! It was a serious betrayal of her supporters. The arrogance in her expecting all would still stay in line, supporting her made it all the worse.

When someone stabs you in the back are you willing to still be their pal cause they say pretty things while doing so? Apparently some are.

Oy.

Julie

[Name removed]

73. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[randr]

80. If we on the left are so divided over the Hillary prospect

imagine how divided the country would be under her leadership.
It would be a continuation of the past 14 years. I am personally sick and tired of the artificial conflicts that take our attention away from creating the possible future that is within our grasp.
I await a true leader who recognizes the American potential and steps up to the plate without personal ambitions.

[wyldwolf]

81. well, in all honesty, it's only a small subset of the left "divided" over Hillary

I wouldn't confuse the netroots with rank and file Democrats:

[SOS]

85. Interesting

Hillary's support has dropped by 14% in the last eight weeks.

While we're posting numbers on Hillary:

NY Senate, 2000 -

Total votes for Clinton: 3,438,999

NY Senate, 2006 -

Total votes for Clinton: 2,811,981

Her vote total in New York dropped by 20%.
Where did 627,018 votes go?

[wyldwolf]

86. you're take is certainly interesting.

I only see a net drop of 5% for Hillary on the poll cited. And a gain from the last time the poll was conducted.

Still - all you need to win is 50% plus 1.

[fuzzyball]

84. Kerry, Edwards, and over a dozen others voted for IWR....

But I am sure you will conveniently disregard that?

[JNelson6563]

87. Not at all

In 04 I made the mistake of biting the bullet and goin' full steam ahead after the primaries for the Dem team. Beyond full time effort for a team I was not happy with and had issues with.

Never again. Never.

Julie