Taylor Marsh, a known liar and Clinton shill, invokes John Kerry to defend Bill Clinton

[ProSense]

Here is Taylor Marsh swiftboating John Kerry because he endorsed Obama.

Now she is invoking John Kerry to defend Bill Clinton (who has attacked Obama repeatedly):

There are several problems with Obama "calling out" Bill Clinton, as some have put it. First, Obama will be fighting on Bill's turf, because Obama's anti war credentials begin with talk and a good anti war speech in 2002, but that's pretty much where it stayed from then on. What Bill Clinton has been saying about Obama's Iraq war record, post that speech, also has the virtue of being true. Obama has to explain why he was against the war but funded it throughout his Senate term, plus stood up and pushed back against John Kerry's amendment for a timely withdrawal, which puts him standing beside Hillary. That Obama's votes are exactly the same as Clinton's on Iraq, except for her vote against Casey for Secretary of the Army, is the foundation for the "fairy tale," as Bill Clinton calls it, myth of Obama's anti Iraq war credentials being strong beyond talk after 2002.

link

It's Bill Clinton who needs to explain his distortions and support for Bush's war:

Bill, Jun. 2004:

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over," Clinton said in a Time magazine interview that will hit newsstands Monday, a day before the publication of his book "My Life."

Clinton, who was interviewed Thursday, said he did not believe that Bush went to war in Iraq over oil or for imperialist reasons but out of a genuine belief that large quantities of weapons of mass destruction remained unaccounted for.

link

Bill, Nov. 2006:

Clinton calls Iraq 'civil war,' against withdrawal timetable
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former President Bill Clinton told CNN Thursday he agrees with those who have labeled the situation in Iraq a "civil war," but -- differing from top congressional Democrats -- said he's against setting a definite timetable for withdrawal.

"We probably shouldn't set a definite timetable right now because we don't want to lose all the leverage we have to get others in the surrounding countries to work with us, and to get the Iraqi political forces to try to get more and more people to choose politics over violence," Clinton told Soledad O'Brien on "American Morning."

link

Taylor Marsh's despicable dishonesty in smearing Obama

Lying Clinton hack, Taylor Marsh, exposed by Las Vegas Sun

[durrrty libby]

1. Taylor Marsh rocks.

[rodeodance]

2. She is a counter to so many Obama shrills on Huff Post.

[Cameron27]

15. Yep

[LittleClarkie]

31. Taylor Marsh can kiss my grits, and here's why

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26808

Rush Limbaugh has a point, eh? If it was an endorsement of Hillary instead of Obama, would she have still thought Kerry's endorsement was classless and unfair to Edwards? Would she have given a shit about Edwards at that point if it had been an endorsement of Hillary?

Partisan hack.

[ray of light]

68. Taylor Marsh has no ethics. Just call her Malkin.

[MethuenProgressive]

3. Thanks for linking to Taylor Marsh's wonderful webpage!

http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26859
She's a Real Democrat!
And she gives Baby Obama a good spanking after his rambling meltdown on ABC today!

There are several problems with Obama "calling out" Bill Clinton, as some have put it. First, Obama will be fighting on Bill's turf, because Obama's anti war credentials begin with talk and a good anti war speech in 2002, but that's pretty much where it stayed from then on. What Bill Clinton has been saying about Obama's Iraq war record, post that speech, also has the virtue of being true. Obama has to explain why he was against the war but funded it throughout his Senate term, plus stood up and pushed back against John Kerry's amendment for a timely withdrawal, which puts him standing beside Hillary. That Obama's votes are exactly the same as Clinton's on Iraq, except for her vote against Casey for Secretary of the Army, is the foundation for the "fairy tale," as Bill Clinton calls it, myth of Obama's anti Iraq war credentials being strong beyond talk after 2002.

[russian33]

7. i second that

her posts are always supported by factual articles, statements...its not just talking out of the ass

[rodeodance]

4. suggestion--increase your vocab---too much use of the word lie.

[Cha]

5. Yes, taylor marsh is an

idiot but that's what hilary needs..and it just keeps going.

[rodeodance]

6. ha ha, IP sites his/her previous du posts as evidence. ha ha

Taylor Marsh's despicable dishonesty in smearing Obama

Lying Clinton hack, Taylor Marsh, exposed by Las Vegas Sun

[MethuenProgressive]

9. Linking back to her own threads for "evidence"??

:rofl:
And half the posts on those threads are her giving herself kicks!!
I'll kick this, just out of kindness to the less able.

[ProSense]

11. Here

try this link.

[MethuenProgressive]

18. Here

try this link

[Tellurian]

20. PROSENSE... Who do we call for "quality control?"

Your spamming is getting really old. Hows that workin for ya...linking back toyour own links as proof?
Do the words 'Fox in the Henhouse' resonate with your ability to link us to independant sources irrespective of your 1000 gig file?

[LittleClarkie]

34. When you've posted previous info and links, siting things pretty well

why do it again.

And I hardly think you're exactly Ms. Manners when it comes to thread etiquette, dear.

[karynnj]

55. So speaks one who mostly links to hillaryis44.com

a well known smear site.

Prosense has plenty of independent sources referenced in each link.

[Tellurian]

58. Says you!

Show me the proof!

Put up or shut up! And don't give me any of your lengthy diatribes absolving yourself of responsibility. You made the accusation (1)Hillary is 44 is a smear site (2) I ALWAYS link to their site..now prove it!

[karynnj]

63. I doubt that most have not seen both to be true - short enough

I would find links - but that would be a lengthy diatribe. You after all never prove your insinuations.

[Tellurian]

65. Nice flub..you can't produce; thats the long and the short of it!

buzz off!

[karynnj]

67. well it at least moved you to drop that ugly pink Hillaryis44.com that was in your signature

ha ha

[Tellurian]

70. Please stop taking those "mood altering" pills..

they're not helping you deal with reality..

The sig lines were removed by the Adm last night during the debate to avoid a systems crash at DU..duh!

[rodeodance]

14. well, just to be clear, the 'evidence' is self evidence on her part. Which was why I had a good

chuckle when I saw that.

[LittleClarkie]

32. If ProSense is linking back, it's because a previous post contained links and info

why repeat the same links and quotes when you can just refer back to them.

I've always admired how much time ProSense seems to spend to cram alot of info and linkage into her posts.

[LostinVA]

29. Every OP is a hit job against a particular candidate

I think she's concerned.

[LittleClarkie]

35. Who are you talking about, Prosense or Tellurian?

I've lost track.

[ProSense]

73. Kick! n/t

[papau]

8. hard to fight truth - Obama needs to acknowledge Bill spoke the truth

[rodeodance]

10. "several problems with Obama "calling out" Bill"--first one is that Obama needs to stop WHINNING.

There are several problems with Obama "calling out" Bill Clinton, as some have put it.

[GalleryGod]

12. Taylor Marsh? Yeah,sure.

No,No..worry about The Lion in Winter, Big Dog...


ONE phone call isn't enough, Bill?

[Tom Rinaldo]

13. You are to Taylor Marsh...

...what Tim Mathews is to Hillary Clinton.

[ProSense]

19. Taylor Marsh has lost her mind.

From the link in the OP to her swiftboating Kerry, she quotes an article:

"Kerry endorsed Barack because he's going to teach him to fight back."

Then says:

Oh God. This had to be a joke. You're kidding, I assumed.

I guess she forgot her own words:

John Kerry Fights for Patrick Murphy

<...>

When Senator John Kerry heard about Fitzgerald swiftboating Murphy he minced no words.

<...>

John Kerry is standing beside Patrick Murphy because he knows how it feels. Kerry made a pledge after it happened to him that he would never let it happen to another veteran without him standing up and fighting back hard.

link

Patrick Murphy won!

When Kerry endorsed Obama, he didn't mince words. I suppose Taylor is just desperate!

[ProSense]

71. Kick! n/t

[wyldwolf]

16. Translation of OP's title

Taylor Marsh, a known liar (she writes uncomfortable truths) and Clinton shill (she supports Hillary Clinton,) invokes John Kerry to defend Bill Clinton. (Cites an accurate incident involving John Kerry while explaining Obama's 'fairy tale' Iraq war stance.)

[ProSense]

21. "Taylor Marsh, a known liar " I take that back:

Taylor Marsh has lost her mind!

[rodeodance]

22. love it.

[LittleClarkie]

37. How about Taylor Marsh, well known partisan hack

would that be better?

If she wasn't obviously supporting one candidate over another her words would mean more, as when she stood up to the "classless" act of John Kerry in endorsing Obama over Edwards, when if it had been Hillary over Edwards she likely wouldn't have said anything about the alleged "classless" act. Would she have agreed with Rush Limbaugh then?

[wyldwolf]

39. actually, no.

You can't discount someone entirely on their brand-loyalty.

The OP wants assumes Marsh is lying because she supports a different candidate.

[LittleClarkie]

42. Fair enough. I think, I'd have taken out the liar, but maybe left the shill

because I do think sometimes her opinions, if not her facts, are colored by her choice of candidates.

[ProSense]

54. "The OP wants assumes Marsh is lying because she supports a different candidate." Not really:

Taylor Marsh's own words contradict her current swiftboating lies

[karynnj]

57. Kerry, who was with Obama in 2004

has said that Obama was telling the truth. He was against the war and he did not want to give the reporters a sound bite on the IWR that would be used against him (Kerry). (This Week) It was a very sincere, humble comment.

[ProSense]

74. Kick! n/t

[Tellurian]

17. Fair is Fair... Bill Clinton campaigned for Kerry a few weeks after By-Pass surgery..

Where's Kerry? Shilling for Obama. Is he reliving his lost campaign for the presidency that gave us Bush?

[LittleClarkie]

43. Hardly the same thing when Kerry was the nominee, and these are merely candidates

Clinton was campaigning at that point as much for the party as a whole as for Kerry himself. More so, I'd say.

[Tellurian]

56. Clinton was recuperating from quadruple By-Pass surgery..

yet, he campaigned for Kerry.

[LittleClarkie]

62. It wasn't for Kerry. He would have done the same for any candidate

he did it for the party.

[Tellurian]

66. No, he did it because Kerry asked him too!

[stillcool]

23. Invoking John Kerry..

will not play well with many posters here. He is to blame for not counting the votes, that couldn't be counted. Ooops! I forgot! That doesn't matter anymore.

[LittleClarkie]

33. Not that it doesn't matter, it just doesn't belong in every damn thread that mentions his name

It's so Pavlovian.

[stillcool]

41. Au Contraire..

I believe the hypocrisy needs to be noted, and highlighted. My senator has been attacked by this board on every opportunity available. I do not believe that one can abuse the Senator on one hand, and decry any attempt at correcting that which they accuse him of not doing. It makes me sick.

[LittleClarkie]

44. I think you lost me. Is your Senator Kerry, or Clinton

and as much as I read this one part

"decry any attempt at correcting that which they accuse him of not doing."

I can't figure out what your point is.

Maybe I haven't had enough caffeine, but could you help a gal out and restate what you're trying to say?

[stillcool]

47. My Senator is Kerry..

and in the years following 2004 there have been many studies written which state that attacks on our election systems are undetectable. Yet people remain very angry at Senator Kerry's failure at counting votes that could not be counted. However, many of these same people, are outraged that Congressman Kucinich dare question the tabulation of votes. I assume those of that opinion, no longer believe that the simple measures experts claim necessary in securing our voting systems is of any import. Ah, forget it. I don't know why I bother. Who cares?
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/Diebold%20Folder/uconn-report-os.pdf
Security Assessment of the Diebold Optical Scan Voting Terminal
A. Kiayias L. Michel A. Russell A. A. Shvartsman
UConn VoTeR Center and
Department of Computer Science and Engineering,
University of Connecticut

THE MACHINERY OF DEMOCRACY:
PROTECTING ELECTIONS
IN AN ELECTRONIC WORLD
BRENNAN CENTER
FOR JUSTICE
AT NYU SCHOOL OF LAW
http://brennan.3cdn.net/a56eba8edf74e9e12e_r2m6b86s2.pdf

Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuBasic Interpreter
David Wagner David Jeerson Matt Bishop
Voting Systems Technology Assessment Advisory Board (VSTAAB)
with the assistance of:
Chris Karlof Naveen Sastry
University of California, Berkeley
February 14, 2006
http://www.votetrustusa.org/pdfs/California_Folder/DieboldReport.pdf

Machine-Assisted Election Auditing
Joseph A. Calandrino*, J. Alex Halderman*, and Edward W. Felten*,†
*Center for Information Technology Policy and Dept. of Computer Science, Princeton University
†Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University
Ariel J. Feldman, J. Alex Halderman, and Edward W. Felten
http://itpolicy.princeton.edu/voting/

Optical Scan Ballot Design
Douglas W. Jones
Sept 15, 2005
http://vote.nist.gov/threats/papers/optical_scan_ballot_design.pdf

[LittleClarkie]

49. I cared, or I wouldn't have asked

Sorry you didn't feel like it was worth bothering with the reply to my question, even if you did it anyway.

Thanks for being clearer just the same.

[stillcool]

50. Not bothering to reply?

jeez...I thought I explained pretty well what I thought you wanted me to clarify. My remarks were my opinion of the John Kerry hypocrisy expounded on here. And the reluctance to count votes. Sorry you felt that I didn't want to bother to reply, but did it anyway? Oh yeah, I'm glad you care.

[LittleClarkie]

51. I guess it was the "Who cares. Why bother." comment. I thought it was directed at me

Sorry if I misinterpreted.

Seriously. Forgive me. Not in the best of moods today for some reason.

[stillcool]

53. No problem.

It's nothing I haven't done. Lately I feel like I'm on auto-reply. Or might as well be. Time for me to take a break.

[karynnj]

61. Sorry - I didn't get it the first time either

[karynnj]

60. Is your Senator Leiberman?

[karynnj]

59. It would have been lots easier if they were actually cast

and cast on machines with paper trails. No one has yet proved there were enough.

[rodeodance]

24. BTW--Thanks IP--for bringing Taylors good work to light today. Much appreciated.

[ProSense]

25. There is an uncomfortable desperation in your responses, but you're welcome. n/t

[ProSense]

26. Kick! n/t

[Maribelle]

27. Clinton knows that Obama's only claim is that speech, yet in the speech Obama said what Hillary said

Hillary gave her floor speech, regarding the vote to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq, in the US Senate on October 10th 2002. In that speech some key elements were:

1. I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial

2. Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

3. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan? So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.

Sixteen days later, Obama at an antiwar rally on October 26th 2002 in Chicago reiterated the same three concepts from Hillary's speech:

1. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

2. I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power.… The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him

3. Let’s fight to make sure that…we vigorously enforce a nonproliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

The difference between the two is that Hillary had access to top secret information that Obama did not have access to, and her floor speech clearly indicated the same cautions that Obama indicated without the top secret information. It appears to me that Obama probably used Hillary's text when preparing his speech.

Since that speech, as President Clinton has pointed out, Hillary has proceeded with her Iraq stance in much the same way Obama has with one exception.

[stillcool]

28. Are you saying

that Clinton was correct in her voting to approve the war in Iraq? Oh by the way, Obama's speech from 2002. Maybe you can make hay out of this.

http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php

Remarks of Illinois State Sen. Barack Obama Against Going to War with Iraq
| October 02, 2002

October 2, 2002

Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances. The Civil War was one of the bloodiest in history, and yet it was only through the crucible of the sword, the sacrifice of multitudes, that we could begin to perfect this union, and drive the scourge of slavery from our soil. I don't oppose all wars.

My grandfather signed up for a war the day after Pearl Harbor was bombed, fought in Patton's army. He saw the dead and dying across the fields of Europe; he heard the stories of fellow troops who first entered Auschwitz and Treblinka. He fought in the name of a larger freedom, part of that arsenal of democracy that triumphed over evil, and he did not fight in vain. I don't oppose all wars.

After September 11th, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration's pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again. I don't oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism.

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income - to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear - I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of Al Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the President today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe. You want a fight, President Bush?

Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil. Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair.

The consequences of war are dire, the sacrifices immeasurable. We may have occasion in our lifetime to once again rise up in defense of our freedom, and pay the wages of war. But we ought not -- we will not -- travel down that hellish path blindly. Nor should we allow those who would march off and pay the ultimate sacrifice, who would prove the full measure of devotion with their blood, to make such an awful sacrifice in vain.

[Maribelle]

36. Why do you tell me to make hay when it was obviously already reaped?

Or did you not even notice that Obama's numbers 1 thru 3 in my post were verbatim quotes from his speech?

[stillcool]

38. You are obviously, still trying to make hay...

First you excerpt "key" phrases in Obama's speech which you suggest he co-opted from Hillary. Then you assert that the reason Clinton has 'stood by' her stance is because she was privy to 'intelligence' that Obama was not. Excuse me in I mis-read your post, but it appears you are saying that Clinton was correct in her voting for the war with Iraq, and equally correct in 'standing-by' her position.

[Maribelle]

46. Nope. You're reading something into my post that's simply not there.

I did not say who was correct or who was not or anything of that nature. I simply gave my opinion, that on the three points I gave as an example, it seems Obama could have used Hillary's speech. Those were heavy points.

[stillcool]

48. ah..okay...

you are accusing him of plagiarism. Making hay?

[LostinVA]

30. I'm very tired of the spamming OPs by several posters -- including this one

Blantant violations of DU rules.

[Evergreen Emerald]

40. It is getting very nasty around here, isn't it.

[LittleClarkie]

45. Do you alert therefore?

and are they then deleted?

If not, it would seem the mods disagree.

[GalleryGod]

52. Rules? We have no steeeeeeeenking Rules...Apparently.

Teddy: "Bill,shut your mouth until the dessert is served!"

[ursi]

64. Taylor Marsh is irrelevant

[ProSense]

69. Kick! n/t

[ProSense]

72. Kick! n/t