If you vote for Hillary, you will be voting for four more years of war!

[IndianaGreen]

How many will die or be wounded while Hillary keeps combat troops in Iraq through 2013?

While Hillary is not the only Democratic candidate saying that the war will still be going on at the end of her first term, it is true that the punditry have anointed Hillary as the Democratic nominee, and it is also true that Bill Clinton told the British newspaper The Guardian the role he expects to play once his wife is in the Oval Office.

Helen Thomas took no crap from Bush, and she unloads on the war enablers in our party in this column:

Published on Friday, October 5, 2007 by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer

The Democrats Who Enable Bush

by Helen Thomas

President Bush has no better friends than the spineless Democratic congressional leadership and the party’s leading presidential candidates when it comes to his failing Iraq policy.

Those Democrats seem to have forgotten that the American people want U.S. troops out of Iraq, especially since Bush still cannot give a credible reason for attacking Iraq after nearly five years of war.

Last week at a debate in Hanover, N.H., the leading Democratic presidential candidates sang from the same songbook: Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards refused to promise to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, at the end of the first term of their hypothetical presidencies. Can you believe it?

When the question was put to Clinton, she reverted to her usual cautious equivocation, saying: “It is very difficult to know what we’re going to be inheriting.”

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4352/

Then there is Jeff Cohen:

Published on Friday, October 5, 2007 by CommonDreams.org

Pundit Elite Enraptured by Hillary’s ‘Flawless Campaign’

by Jeff Cohen

Beltway pundits know that most of our country wants out of Iraq, and they seem to like it when Clinton offers the antiwar base rhetorical teases (”If we in Congress don’t end this war by January 2009, as President, I will!”) - while the laptop warriors in the media know damn well she’ll prolong for years an occupation that none of their kids are dying in.

National pundits - whose jobs can’t be outsourced overseas - know that most of the public opposes corporate-written trade deals like NAFTA. They like it when Clinton deftly implies she may change course (”I believe in pro-American trade”) - knowing full well that Clinton and her corporate backers are as blindly worshipful of “free trade” as they in the national press corps.

Polls show that most Americans want government-provided national health insurance. Pundits applaud Clinton’s cautious talk of incremental healthcare reform that keeps big bureaucratic private insurance firms at the center of the system, a status quo that will never work for most Americans but suits the well-insured pundit elite just fine.

I know a bit about mainstream punditry, having been a talking head on cable news for years until I was muzzled on the eve of the Iraq War. While millions of Americans vocally opposed an invasion of Iraq, the few TV voices who supported those millions were marginalized or silenced. I spoke for a majority of Americans when I advocated national health insurance and opposed corporate trade deals - but within the pundit club, I was a fringe minority.

Given the conservative tilt of the punditocracy, it doesn’t surprise me that many in the media are seeking to anoint Clinton as the Democratic nominee, or that they (including at Fox News) tend to side with her in disputes with Edwards or Obama.

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/10/05/4331/

What are we to do when we are being told that the nomination is but a mere formality prior to the glorious return of the Clinton Dynasty? Here is what we can do. Instead of voting for a candidate like Hillary Clinton that will give us four more years of war, and perhaps a war in Iran (if Bush hasn't started one by then), how about looking at one of the lower tier candidates. One with more experience that the three top tier candidates combined. One that tells it like it is, even when we find his views disagreable. One that says what he means, and means what he says. One that is electable because he won't scare centrists away. One that will end the war and won't keep an occupation force in Iraq like Hillary and the other top tier candidates say they will.

How about JOE BIDEN?

[illinoisprogressive]

1. And war with Iran. Plus, Hillary is dancing around the issue of torture

[mike_c]

2. agreed-- a vote for Sen. Clinton is a vote for war....

I don't care what letter she puts after her name.

[proudleftists]

15. Hillary Means More War

Unfortunately  that seems to be true. Please Liberals if you
want to end these monstrous wars do not vote for Hillary in
the primaries. Let us have the grassroots rise up and demand
that the Democrats end this was and STOP American road to
racist fascism. Beyonce Welch - Woman of Color and Proud Peace
Advocate. 

[BrightKnight]

97. She has a secret plan to invade Canada and Mexico. - n/t

[emilyg]

3. Do you really think the other candidates can have us out immediately?

[IndianaGreen]

6. By their own words, we know the top tier candidates will keep us in Iraq beyond 2012.

And Hillary said that as long there was an Al-Qaeda in Iraq, she would keep combat troops there. Since Al-Qaeda is in Iraq because we are there, Hillary's plan will result in permanent war and occupation.

The second tier candidates such as Dodd, Biden, and Richardson, do not speak of keeping troops in Iraq through 2013. Biden clearly speaks of getting all of them out!

[AtomicKitten]

57. The hypothetical question asking for a promise was "gotcha" politics

The truth is any candidate would have abandoned all credibility if they answered this particular question with any certainty.

Unfortunately some are interpreting that to mean they would keep troops in past the hypothetical date when the truth is they just can't and won't promise.

I agree a preponderance of the candidates' positions leads me to believe what Helen says is true, however, this particular question should be scrutinized accurately for what it is, what it really means, i.e., trying to elicit a promise when none can realistically be made, and not used independently to mean anything other than they cannot possibly promise something in such a volatile atmosphere and off in the future.

Helen was right-on but for a different reason since in my opinion that particular question was rigged. Hillary's yes votes on the IWR and Kyl-Lieberman amendment are what make Helen's case golden.

Now for some proselytizing: Obama has promised to stop all combat operations immediately and to immediately start withdrawing troops at two battalions a month, the optimum rate according to military analysts to get the hell out of Dodge ASAP, and he does advocate leaving troops to guard the embassy, something I hope he reconsiders since that worked out so nicely when we left troops in Saudi Arabia.

[superkia]

88. You forgot Dennis Kucinich, he said it was about oil in 2002 as he...

voted no. He also voted no to all funding bills for the same reason. Dodd and Biden both voted for it in 2002 and also for funding it after the fact. What was the agenda of all that gave that power to the president in 2002? I know Kucinich spoke out in 2002, Richardson I have only found something saying that he was against it, I couldn't find any speech's from back then but I will take his word.

If Americans really look at the shape of the country, the direction its heading in and what the candidates are directly saying instead of political maneuvering, I think we could all be in for a surprise in the primaries. I think most people are fed up with the typical politicians that we have looked to for our leadership and they have been leading us down a terrible path...for the people that is, the wealthy, powerful and corporations are doing fine. Now is a great time for a completely different kind of president, one that will give the people a voice again.

[Ken Burch]

7. The ones who want us out earlier will obviously be more trustworthy on this

Than the ones who hedge. It is almost impossible for someone elected as a hawk to turn into a dove once sworn in.

[IndianaGreen]

11. Hillary voted to give Bush the authority to bomb Iran. Biden and Dodd voted against it.

Hillary's judgment comes into question when she gives Bush authority to do anything, be it Iran or Iraq.

[Ken Burch]

13. That is an important distinction.

n/t.

[MonkeyFunk]

21. No she didn't

[cali]

28. Ah, sweet ignorance.

Hate that resolution, but it does know such thing. First of all, try reading about the President's authority to launch an attack. Start with the Constitution then move on to the War Powers Resolution of 1973. He already has the authority to bomb Iran. What she did vote for could conceivalby leand him cover. That's bad enough without exaggerating.

[IndianaGreen]

60. The issue is that Hillary voted to give Bush anything at all!

Giving Bush the authority for anything, is like giving your car keys to a drunk. You got no one to blame but yourself if the drunk wrecks your car and kills someone in the process. You would be held civilly liable!

The same applies to Hillary! She gave Bush the keys to the war machine!

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. And do you really think Hillary will get our troops out at all?

If you do, you haven't been paying attention.

[Carrieyazel]

68. Richardson would. He'd do it as quickly and safely as possible.

[Fredda Weinberg]

4. And I suppose the Green Party has the answer? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

5. Joe Biden will get us out of Iraq! Biden tells it like it is. Biden doesn't triangulate.

Biden has more qualitative and quantitative experience than Hillary, Obama, and Edwards combined.

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. I like Biden. You think America is ready? n/t

[IndianaGreen]

9. Polls show the American people want out of Iraq ASAP

Do you want 5,000 more dead GIs, which is what you will have by 2013?

[Fredda Weinberg]

12. I remember Vietnam ... don't wanna see it again. We're still not over

the trauma of a dishonorable retreat. We broke Iraq and it's up to us to assemble a governing body ... and in the next administration, I have no doubt that career diplomats will rise to the challenge.

[IndianaGreen]

23. Vietnam was not a "dishonorable retreat." It was a great victory, for the Vietnamese people!

A victory we denied them in 1954 when we partitioned the country and installed a puppet regime in order to prevent a victory by Ho Chi Minh, the man that fought the Japanese and the French to liberate his people. We killed over a million Vietnamese civilians to prevent the inevitable!

We are not meant to be a colonial power, and that was not the intent of the Founders.

[Fredda Weinberg]

43. I know what we did - but remember what side *we're* on

Of course the US is an imperial power - since we purchased Louisiana and got involved in Caribbean slave revolts. Democrats risk alienating the general public if we *don't* take advantage of our position. The Clinton way has been to organize global partnerships ... I can support that agenda.

[jmp]

33. Yeah, it's a real shame we didn't ...

Stick around for another decade and lose another 50,000 Americans in order to preserve our honor. Then we could've sent ground forces into Cambodia and Laos and really teach those commie bastards a lesson.

Our troops might even be getting home by now.

:sarcasm:

[Fredda Weinberg]

42. No, the shame is that defensiveness kept it going. But shame

based behavior is the bane of human existence. The US is realizing its mistake, but groups are not individuals and change takes time and can be unpredictable. Simplistic slogans didn't help then and surely aren't useful now when trying to converse with a sympathizer.

[iaviate1]

85. GP wouldn't have us there in the first place.

Can't say that for most of the Dem's, right?

[CoffeeCat]

10. That's not true...

Hillary touted and voted for the Iraq war--knowing damn well that
Bush was going in under false pretenses. She was there when the neocons
asked her husband to take out Saddamn. She knew full well that they
wanted him out for years...and she didn't step forward to expose their
warmongering and lies.

Furthermore, Hillary has said, "War with Iran is not off the table" and she's
spewing Iran talking points that parrot Bush's rhetoric.

The woman is behaving like a card-carrying PNACer and if you think that
she only wants FOUR years of war, you are grossly underestimating her
neocon tendencies.

She's propped up every BushCo war debacle so far, and has yet to criticize
the BushCo warmongering. What negative things has she said about going to
war with Iran? I'll tell ya...NADA.

She's a warmonger and four years won't be enough for her or the rest of the
power-elite, neocon, corporatist greedophiles.

[IndianaGreen]

14. Hillary told AIPAC that all options were on the table with Iran, including first use of nukes

Sy Hersh revealed the Pentagon planned to use atomic bunker buster bombs on Iran's nuclear facilities. Hillary was confronted by Code Pink, and at one of the debates, on her implied threat to use nukes, and she refused to take first use of atomic weapons off the table.

Any politician that would even consider to use atomic weapons on a first strike, is unfit for office.

[aquart]

19. "Mutually assured destruction."

Normally not a hard concept. You do not take your strongest weapon off the table. You do not walk crippled into a negotiation. YOU DO NOT TIE ONE HAND BEHIND YOUR BACK.

You say, "any politician". Any LEADER will not take it off the table. A politician might, to get your vote. THAT is the person not worthy of your vote.

Carrying a big stick does NOT mean you use it. It just means everyone knows you can. If you think that America has other means to keep people negotiating, guess what? We don't. We are no longer an economic power. Or any other kind. Get your head out of the last century. It's over.

[Exultant Democracy]

16. Kyl/Lieberman nuff said.

[LibertyorDeath]

17. America is going to be in the Middle East until

the oil runs dry....

[aquart]

20. No, we won't.

Worst case scenario, we exhaust ourselves, our armies, our supplies to the point of bankruptcy, and China strolls in peacefully with acceptable contracts and walks off with the whole shebang.

Best case, we have the hurricane Lloyd's of London is predicting and we are forced to bring our people home to deal with it, because it will be THAT BAD. (And China still strolls in peacefully and walks off with the whole shebang.)

Anything else is a political minefield and we are all in fantasyland if we don't realize how difficult every step of ending this war will be. BECAUSE THE REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER SHUT UP. And they still control our media. So lives will be lost while we try to bring our people home to an abundance of lies.

And we don't really want these maimed souls home. Because every possible piece of shit is going to hit the fan. They are traumatized. We will have suicides. We will have craziness upon craziness and no medical structure in place to help them. AND NO JOBS FOR THEM WHEN THEY BECOME CIVILIANS.

Oh, and there will be that bloodbath in Iraq. And that will be our fault, too. Not for leaving, but for invading a sovereign nation that never attacked us. But it will still fall like the towers on the head of whatever administration initiates the withdrawal.

You want a straight answer. You think that shows a strong leader. No, just a simplistic one. Like our George.

[mmonk]

18. Biden is fine with me.

I'm certainly not going to pursue electing Clinton. However, if she gets the nomination, I don't see how letting another republican will help end the war (unless it's Ron Paul, but he brings a whole host of other negatives). I prefer Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, or Biden. But I don't know how we can flip them over to be the frontrunners. Any ideas?

[calteacherguy]

22. Please stop calling it a war. It's not. nt

[IndianaGreen]

24. And torture is not torture. You and Bush are reading the Newspeak Dictionary!

The government's most brilliant and most appalling project is the actual deconstruction of the English language into Newspeak, the language of the Party. Each successive edition of the Newspeak Dictionary has fewer words than its predecessor. By removing meaning and nuance from the vocabulary, the government hopes to eradicate seditious and anti-social thinking before it even has the chance to enter a person's mind. Without the vocabulary for revolution, there can be no revolution. For those who persist in thinking for themselves, so-called Thought Criminals, Ingsoc's stormtroopers, the Thought Police, are there to intervene, incarcerating the free-thinkers in the Ministry of Love, where they will be re-educated, or worse.

http://www.newspeak.com/1984.htm

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

25. That's a bit of an overaction.... "War" is the newspeak version.

Iraq is an occupation.

"War" is the Bush frame... it conjures up past glory and implies the possibility of victory.

Everyone calls it a war, so it's no big deal, but why drag out the Orwell cudgel to use on someone who actually calls a thing what it is?

If everyone called it what it is it would helps matter considerably, removing "victory" as a concept.

[Ken Burch]

93. So....what SHOULD we call it?

None of us are being soft on it, but you seem to believe you have a better term. Please, share it.
We can't read your mind and probably we'd agree with you.

[ima_sinnic]

100. it is an occupation--an illegal one, at that (nt)

[happygoluckytoyou]

26. BUCK FUSH.... AND THE GOP SHILL-ERY HILLERY....

PUT EDWARDS IN OFFICE.... PRO LABOR.... PRO CIVIL RIGHTS.... AND YOU KNOW HE WILL BRING BACK THE TROOPS

[Divine Discontent]

72. please quit shouting in all caps, mods write him since he blocks messages n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

27. She said the first thing she would do once in office is to start the

withdrawl of troops.


I am getting tired of the double-standard here.

[pnwmom]

31. It is getting old, isn't it?

[mmonk]

34. Not a double standard.

If she says she won't promise all the troops will be withdrawn by the end of her first term, how is it a double standard?

[Evergreen Emerald]

41. for god's sake...they ALL said that

That is what I mean about the double standard...and for your information

What a superficial reading of what she said. DIG DEEPER before you accuse her of all sorts of war-mongering attributes.

[mmonk]

45. All have said they would start removing troops, that is correct.

Three wouldn't promise they still wouldn't have troops in Iraq after the end of their first term. Continued presence will keep continued conflict unless Iraqis acquiesce to a continuing occupation.

[proud2BlibKansan]

36. But she favors leaving troops there

and building permanent bases in Iraq. Bringing home a few troops will not end the war. And saying she will bring SOME troops home will not earn her the support of the anti-war movement. Since we do represent a sizable number of the votes she will need to get elected and since we do reflect the opinion of the majority of Americans, Hillary needs to commit to bringing ALL the troops home. Not SOME.

[Evergreen Emerald]

37. they all said that but kucinich

and yes, it is getting old

[silverojo]

29. K&R, but screw Biden

He represents the credit card companies, not American consumers.

[Mythsaje]

30. Edwards wants to end combat operations immediately...

That ain't the same thing AT ALL, though the corporate media whores would like to pretend it is. But they suck.

And FUCK Joe Biden and his Rave Act. Fuckwad drug warrior. I spit in his oatmeal.

[Evergreen Emerald]

so does Clinton. So does Kucinich

Biden does not...

[Evergreen Emerald]

39. so does Clinton. So does Kucinich

Biden does not...

[Imagevision]

32. Before 08 election we'll have been in Iraq 7 years, Hillary states by the end of 2013

we'll be "bringing the troops home" - Quite obviously controlling the flow of oil can't be done NOW! neither can bringing the troops home be done NOW and the US. knows no other words to solve the problem which is as Bush puts it; "we're addicted to oil". and refuse to seek alternative methods for solutions.

[Sparkly]

38. Sens. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and former Sen. John Edwards

Let's just be clear that all three said they couldn't guarantee ALL troops out by 2013.

Imagine if they'd made such a guarantee -- that absolutely, no matter WHAT happened, ALL troops would be out. That would make the entire country of Iraq a free zone for any and all kinds of actions, with the guarantee that the US won't do anything about it involving force. That's a really reckless thing to promise in a campaign.

It's also a bit careless to equate "can't promise" with "Four more years of war!"

I really believe they all want the same thing.

[Carrieyazel]

71. A Huge Mistake for all 3 to say that in the debate.

Let's hope it sticks.

[LWolf]

40. No fear. I won't be voting for HRC.

In any race.

[Evergreen Emerald]

44. whatever....then vote for McCain or Romney

any vote other than for the democrat will put them in office.

AND if we learned nothing from the past two presidencies, there IS a difference between dems and reps.

[LWolf]

46. No, thanks. I don't vote for Republicans.

Neither do I vote for republican-lites from any party, or corporate democrats, or DLC democrats.

[Evergreen Emerald]

47. Not true. A vote against a democrat is a vote for a republican.

[truedelphi]

49. Look - fifty per cent of Americans do not vote AT ALL

Don't pick on those who have made up their minds that they want to vote for whom they really want.

A pair of shoes with five holes in the soles is as useless as a pair of shoes with ten.

All your argument does is convince those of us whose hearts have broken because of the warp in today's political machinery to NOT FRIGGIN' BOTHER TO VOTE AT ALL

[LWolf]

50. That's bullshit propaganda, and it goes where the rest

of the bullshit goes: in the manure pile.

A vote for a Republican is a vote for a Republican. Any other vote is a vote FOR whatever, or whomever, the vote is cast.

I don't vote AGAINST people, but FOR them.

I have never cast a vote AGAINST a Democrat, and I never will.

I will, however, cast my vote FOR someone in every election, and it has never been cast, in a state or national election, FOR a Republican. It never will be.

Take your stinking propaganda to someone more gullible.

[Evergreen Emerald]

51. reality bites

go ahead stick your head in the dirt and ignore reality. While Nero rules and Rome burns.

[LWolf]

52. Reality: bullshit stinks, and the flies that hover about it bite.

You don't like it, quit spreading it. Clean it up instead. Start by putting out the flames of corruption within the party you support, the corruption you support with your blatant bullshit propaganda, so that the Democrats in Washington will do the same in our government.

Or, as I said, take it to someone more gullible. That's the thing about bullshit propaganda; those spewing it are blinded by the steam and choked on the fumes. Try the pigs; they're used to manure piles, and they can march behind you chanting: "Four legs bad, two legs good" all you like.

Those of us who don't stoop to that level have our eyes and brains in the clear. I see the reality without the impediments of bullshit.

It's the best service I can offer my party: to refuse to enable corruption.

It's the best service I can offer my country: to refuse to enable corruption.

[Evergreen Emerald]

53. the best service I can do for my country is to make sure no other

Bush-like republican gets in office. And to do that--I will not waste my vote.

[LWolf]

56. That's no service, if by doing so you allow

corruption to continue. If you're looking clearly at Congress, you'll see that corruption ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE have enabled the Bush administration.

Why do you think so many Democrats are so unhappy with Democratic congresspeople at this point? Because too many of them enabled the Bush agenda, voting for it repeatedly.

If the quality of the replacement doesn't matter, as long as there is no "R" after the name, you haven't served the nation, or the party, well.

You've simply led us further into the darkness.

If you don't have the courage to stand up and fight, in every way you know how, there will be no big rollback of the incursions that are eating into our constitutional protections.

If your reps aren't listening, are offering excuses instead of action when it's time to support and defend that constitution, are offering grand sounding, ambiguous rhetoric to pacify you and allow them to continue to ignore you, then you aren't helping the party or the nation to elect someone who is more of the same, no matter what party they are from.

The Democratic Party is at a crossroads. It will become the party of the enablers, or will fight to return to being the party of the people.

It's not "Democrats vs Republicans" at this juncture in the national story; it's corporatists vs the left wing, both in the party and in the nation.

I know where I stand, and I'm not backing down.

[martymar64]

59. The answer to the problem is secession

It's time to dissolve the rotten federal system and let the states all go their own way.

[LWolf]

61. I don't know if that's the answer,

but at least it's thinking about possibilities. :shrug:

[martymar64]

62. I think the sentiment will only grow from both sides

if things don't improve around here. The federal gov't is proving more and more broken in so many ways as time goes on. I've only arrived at this conclusion fairly recently (the past year or so). I hope it can be done farily peacefully, but those in power want to keep the gravy train running, so secession would be their nightmare scenario.

[Divine Discontent]

73. doesn't succession result in the US military stepping in and imposing

martial law ordered by the president? I thought states couldn't do this without warfare? (civil war)

[martymar64]

89. Not if the whole country splits

Not just the southern states. Besides, the best of our military force is in Iraq and how many troops would be willing to kill their own people? Martial Law would not work in the US. If troops can't control insurgencies in Iraq, a country with about a 20th of the US's population, what makes you think they can control an armed population of 300 million that extends across an entire continent?
My hope is that it can be fairly peaceful, like the split in old Czechoslovakia. I worked for the most part for the old Soviet Union (with the exception of Chechnya).

[Capn Sunshine]

66. Herr Rove has succeeded then

All along, he has desired a federal government weaker than the states, which would mean political power at the national level would reside with the corporations.

Congratulations on buying the whole sack of crap ; the right wing has been trying to insert this into folks subconscious ever since Roosevelt.

[martymar64]

90. Separate countries can set their own laws regarding corporations.

I don't advocate weakening the federal government, I advocate dissolving it altogether. I no longer works. Caifornia can certainly survive without the rest of the US, as can Cascadia, New England and he Great Lakes states.
To use California as an example, it is the world's 6th largest economy and subsidizes the federal system to the tune of $88B /yr. That would be enough to provide it with Universal Health care and universal college education for everybody in the state. Seceded states could theoretically end the war on drugs, bring its troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan, Germany, Korea and everywhere else federal bases are. It could end corporate personhood in its courts and restore an open and transparent political system.
Now tell me which of these things are undesirable to you. Or would you rather try to "work within the system" which is irredeemably corrupt and increasingly oppressive. Under the present system, nothing will change. Political power already resides with the corporations under the present system and they will not give it up without a fight. Our best recourse is to just take our money and leave the system.

Let Karl Rove do what he likes in the reconstituted confederacy, I won't be living there. Let the people there deal with him. Thinking that the fedral system still works is RW propaganda.

[Ken Burch]

83. Even if it meant a Democrat who was as close to "Bush-like" as possible?

(not saying any of them are quite that bad this year, but some come close).

You wouldn't have been this heavy-handed about it if we'd been forced to nominate Lieberman, would you?

[Ken Burch]

82. You can't seriously say we have no right to expect ANYTHING from the candidate our votes will elect.

Activists should not be treated with that kind of contempt.

[Ken Burch]

81. At this point a vote for HRC can't be a POSITIVE vote.

On her present platform, it is simply a vote of settling for what the Beltway tells us we have to settle for. It is, as of now, a vote of surrender and self-loathing.

She could change that, but it would mean running a campaign that respects and engages activists and the grass roots, not one based on getting big checks.

[LWolf]

92. That's my point.

I vote FOR people; if I can't vote FOR them, I'll vote FOR someone else.

[Ken Burch]

95. I realize that. And I was actually intending to respond to a different post

than yours. I meant to respond to post 51.

[LWolf]

96. You've posted some good points, thanks.

In, perhaps, a less blunt and more civil manner than me at this point.

:hi:

[BornagainDUer]

48. K&R! Thanks for this IG

[AtomicKitten]

54. Punctuating her yes vote on the IWR with a yes vote on the Kyl-Amendment -

was all the evidence I need to fear what Helen says is true.

And although you have shown little confidence in Obama as well, if Gore doesn't jump in, I will gladly cast my vote for Barack "No Nukes" Obama. He has pledged to stop all combat immediately and start removing troops at the rate of two battalions a month until they are out.

Obama proposes leaving a residual force to protect the embassy, but I am hopeful he will realize that isn't a good idea in light of the fact that the "residual troops" left in Saudi Arabia succeeded only in seeding mistrust and resentment.

[Major Hogwash]

80. Yeah, she blew it big time when she decided to ignore 70% of Americans who are sick of war.

I don't know who gave her the advice to do that, but it will come back to haunt her.
She has made some terrible mistakes during this campaign, trying to "outhawk" the hawks. I think her campaign will be seriously derailed at the Iowa caucus, no matter what the polls say today. Then in New Hampshire, she will face an uphill battle trying to backtrack from all of these hawkish statements. If she has 2 or 3 losses in a row, early on, I think she will lose momentum and it will cost her the nomination.

In mid-December of 2004, Kerry wasn't even polling in the double digits, yet 90 days later he was the party's nominee.

[bpeale]

94. Edwards promised the same thing

that he would only have troops guarding our embassy like they do in every other part of the world. Obama would do the same. The only way they could ALL be out is if we close our embassy permanently.

[ShortnFiery]

55. Kick for an American Treasure, Helen Thomas, who's always been "spot on"

Helen Thomas :loveya: :thumbsup:

[Major Hogwash]

99. If Helen be for us, who can be against us?

This woman should have her articles printed on the front page of every newspaper in America!

[Yael]

58. Adding a kick and a nom

[ImpeechBush]

63. If the 30% pro-war vote is split between Clinton and the repub candidate

maybe there is room for a strong third candidate in the race?

[BrightKnight]

79. There are more than 3 candidates in the race. - n/t

[ClintonTyree]

64. You know, I'm really getting sick of this kind of shit.

DU is going to hell in a handbasket. Attack away, call me all sorts of names (seems to be the only thing many are good at), but I think this place is actually getting to be the home of the "loony left". :eyes:

I've been a member of DU since shortly after 9/11, but this crap is getting ridiculous. I'm outta' here.

[stillrockin]

65. Dissent is patriotic. Hillary is a corporate tool. See ya.

[Snarkturian Clone]

67. Farewell

[BrightKnight]

77. A lot of it smells like freeper shit.

It is always the same stupid threads over and over.

I don't think that the Obama or Edwards campaigns would be behind this kind of dim witted nonsense.

Somebody is trying to inflame as much infighting as possible.
divide and conquer

[emilyg]

87. Yes - the "dim witted".

[Ken Burch]

84. Leave terms like "loony left" to the rabid right, wouldya?

Democrats aren't SUPPOSED to be hostile to progressives. Shouting down honest discussion only weakens us.

[Danger Mouse]

69. Hillary...

slightly better than the rethuglicans.
slightly.

[recovering democrat]

70. No I will not.

The premise of your post is misleading, inaccurate and dangerous to the future hopes of the Democratic Party. We can agree to disagree on candidates in the primaries. But if we use the wrong arguments in the primaries we turn those arguments over to the twisted, sick and dishonest verbage of the Repug opponents.

I have become a Hillary Clinton supporter because of what I have seen of her so far. I believe she is the candidate who will turn on her Republican opponent as needed to win this election. I watched Gore "play nice" and Kerry "play nicer". Neither are now serving as President. Because they played nice.

It is dishonest to expect her or any other candidate to commit to any one and only position on Iraq as it plays only into the hands of the Republicans.

I have son serving today in Iraq. I repeat, I am supporting Hillary Clinton. If she is not the Democratic nominee, I will vote for the Democratic nominee.


Note: some years back during the Clinton presidency, I got really tired and pissed off about the continuing array of Hillary jokes that my male business associates always passed on. I told them I was tired of hearing Hillary jokes, they had gotten stale. Now, I am tired of hearing Democrats make these kinds of negative arguments about one of an array of outstanding candidates, any of whom are so far much better than the Republican field that we should simply be happy they are all Democrats! What a big tent! So I just had to stop tonight in reading the various postings at DU and rant about how really tired and pissed off I am about Democrats "eating their own" again, and again, and again. I will not participate in the exercise. Have a nice day.

[The Count]

74. Ummm - Just Hillary? Not Edwards and Obama? And in fairness, until they shove pledges

down the throat of Republican candidates, I am not going to make any judgments based on those. On ANYBODY.
I have enough actual facts to make my judgments on (and I am not supporting Hillary, nor Edwards). But this pledge thingy is utterly ridiculous - you let Ruslut play you.

[deacon]

75. She's a hawk. n/t

[Moochy]

76. Get Ready For...

The New War From 44!

[Hardrada]

78. Even the folks at Stormfront think the war sucks

and are appalled at talk of war with Iran. Jeeze, even the fascists are ahead of some Duers on this one??

[Virginian]

86. Any one who doesn't support the President...

According to Ann Coulter, anyone who does not support the President in a time of war is a traitor. So, if Hillery inherits this war, will Coulter support her to avoid being a traitor? I don't think so.

[Vidar]

91. My ringing endorsement of Hillary! I have no doubt that Hillary can run our

military murder machine much more competently that Bush, probably giving us a much better death/buck ratio.

[Elidor]

98. You had me right up until the word 'Biden'

And the cognitive dissonance of someone with a Marx avatar urging me to vote for Biden just made my fucking head explode.

[ArkySue]

101. According to Cheney

If we vote for any Democrat we'll be attacked by terra'ists again.
Cripes, any of the Dem candidates will be better than the toads running in the Repuke primaries.

[Forkboy]

102. Don't worry, I'm not voting for her.