Obama DID NOT VOTE ON THE IWR.....

[BlackVelvet04]

he wasn't in the senate. He was not called on to vote.

I'm sick of all this shit about his great judgment. Where was his great judgment when he got into a land deal with Rezko because he wanted something he couldn't afford? He says now it was boneheaded...NO IT WAS POOR FUCKING JUDGMENT.

We'll never know what he would have done on the IWR vote because he wasn't there. He even said he doesn't know.

[BlackVelvet04]

1. I'll bump it myself. n/t

[goldcanyonaz]

2. He couldn't be bother to vote on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment either. Most here don't care though.

He's a SupaStar!

[BlackVelvet04]

3. the spin is sickening......

good judgment my ass.

[rodeodance]

40. well, yah kn0w--Obama's priority was in NH CAMPaigning.

[cd3dem]

4. BINGO... it is the only issue Obama is running on... and he has no history of making judgments

I was against the war from the start as well.... Elect CD3DEM!!!!

I do not care about the IWR vote... I care about the economy and moving us out of Iraq...

Obama says he is the only one who can stand up against McCain on Iraq.... I think any democrat can argue with McCain when he says he will stay in Iraq for 100 years... a non-issue... move on....

[intheozone]

5. K&R, because so many here seem to not know the facts. nt

[The Delegates]

6. Hm

About this whole Rezko thing...

Since when does having a friend do something stupid that you don't know about = bad judgment?

If so, anyone who has ever went to college has bad judgment.

Much ado about nothing.

[BlackVelvet04]

8. Are you saying he didn't know about

Rezko's reputation? If so, I call BULLSHIT. He knew, but he wanted something he couldn't afford and he entangled himself in a deal that shows incredibly poor judgment.

[Levgreee]

13. Rezko wasn't being pursued for the crimes he committed during the deal

nice try

[BlackVelvet04]

20. Rezko was already under the federal investigation that lead to his indictment and upcoming trial.

nice try

[rodeodance]

60. to suggest OBAMA did NOT know is the stupidist thing I have heard in a long time!!

[intheozone]

16. Obama used Rezko to purchase a home he couldn't

otherwise afford, after getting elected to fed. senate, after Rezko was already under the federal investigation that lead to his indictment and upcoming trial. I view that as bad judgment for any politician. WTF, how could Obama not see that the purchase might be used against by opponents? All you have to do is think back to all the Whitewater BS to know it would be a bad idea that could give rise to allegations of corruption and scandal.

[BlackVelvet04]

24. No, it's not much ado about nothing....

it's poor fucking judgment to make a deal with a thug who is under indictment.

[The Delegates]

27. No, it's poor fucking judgment to be honest about it

When exactly are the Clintons gonna release their stuff?

Exactly.

[BlackVelvet04]

29. Well, I might answer you if your post were remotely

coherent.

[The Delegates]

32. It was

But you're pulling the ol "I can't hear you the phone is breaking up" trick.

It's cute.

[BlackVelvet04]

33. maybe to you n/t

[dkf]

7. Al Gore would have voted against it. It wasn't hard to figure out this was a bad idea.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-09-23-gore-text_x.htm

As did 23 other Dem senators

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden

[BlackVelvet04]

11. You don't know what Al Gore would have done.....

you're making assumptions. We don't know what Obama would have done, SOMETHING HE ADMITS TO.

Jesus, Obama can't run on other Democrat's records of voting.

[dkf]

31. Do you think Rachel Maddow might have voted for the IWR?

She CRIED the night the IWR was passed.

Some of us had a clue...Hillary did not.

She FAILED.

[BlackVelvet04]

36. He can't run on Rachel Maddows position

or the "some of us". The fact is HE DIDN'T VOTE ON IT. He said he didn't know what he would have done if he had to vote on it.

He claims good judgment but he as demonstrated bad judgment on other things. I can claim anything I want if I don't actually have to do anything.

[dkf]

57. Let me get this straight, do you think Hillary showed good judgement in voting for the IWR?

[BlackVelvet04]

62. I don't know because I wasn't there.....

I don't know what she was told or what was in the briefings she got. I do know that the majority of the U.S. was in favor of the war. I was not and am not but I wasn't called on to vote.

[dkf]

79. The majority of our Dem senators voted against the IWR

Do you think they had information that Hillary didn't?

[BlackVelvet04]

82. This thread was not about Hillary.....

do you think it's admirable to want something you can't afford so badly you climb into bed with an indicted thug to get it? Is that good judgment?

[dkf]

91. I'm just wondering how you can hit Obama's judgement on the IWR

when you know Clinton's was absolutely wrong and you are having to make assumptions that he would vote against everything he has said publicly on the IWR.

That doesn't make sense to me.

In regards to Rezko, yeah the guys is no good. But so are a lot of these big time contributors imo.

[BlackVelvet04]

92. You keep wanting to avoid my point......

it's about using good judgment as opposed to talking about good judgment.

[dkf]

96. I think he had good judgement speaking out against the IWR

Can we at least give him credit for that?

[Gingergal]

156. Yes, we do know what Al Gore would have done.

Al Gore issued an angry statement saying he would NEVER have started the Iraq War if he were the president. Sadly, he was not the president who the supreme court had selected.

[maximusveritas]

12. Yeah, but Gore didn't vote, did he? He just gave a pretty speech

And he also showed poor judgment when he picked Lieberman to be his VP. So he's the same as Hillary too.

[Levgreee]

9. Read this and tell me he didn't seem to have good judgement

Good afternoon. Let 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 arm-chair, 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 Roves 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.

[goldcanyonaz]

14. 'I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. ... What would I have done? I don't know,'

July of 2004

[BlackVelvet04]

18. But we're re-writing

history. :eyes: Thanks for posting the quote.

[rodeodance]

50. Obamababies conjur up that Rovian tactic way way too often.

[otohara]

125. What's With The Name Calling

isn't that a Rovian tactic too? Also, repeat and repeat often.

[rodeodance]

135. yup--just pointing it out.

[rodeodance]

52. I think in that same interview he said he agreed with Bush's position on the war.

[maddiejoan]

58. There's actually very little difference in this speech

than Hillary's own 2002 speech prior to the IWR vote.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14184


There is NOTHING in Obama's speech that supports the conclusion that he would have voted against IWR. Hillary was against a preemptive War with Iraq as well.

[VotesForWomen]

112. if you read what hillary wrote and said, it sounds good too. nt

[Joe the Revelator]

10. He was speaking out against the war as Hillary was voting for it. Stop rewriting history.

[BlackVelvet04]

15. I'm not rewriting anything.....

he didn't have to make the judgment call on the vote because he didn't vote. He admits he doesn't know what he would have done had he been in the Senate and called on to vote. I'm guessing it would have been a No Vote like so many other of his votes.

[goldcanyonaz]

19. He probably wouldn't have even shown up, or voted his usual Present.

[BlackVelvet04]

22. Isn't that the truth... n/t

[rodeodance]

54. PRESENT

[Joe the Revelator]

21. The fact is you don't know that. The fact is he WAS speaking out against the war, while Hillary was

voting for it. He also is capable of Still calling it a mistake while Hillary still trys to makes excuses.

[BlackVelvet04]

23. And he's still voting to fund the war......

he showed poor judgment when he actually had to use judgment instead of just talking about it....easy to say what he "would" have done on the IWR vote, but the fact is he showed incredibly poor judgment in making a deal with Rezko because he wanted something he couldn't afford. You know what most of us do when we want something we can't afford? We don't friggin' buy it. We don't depend on a thug to help us get it.

[Joe the Revelator]

26. You're just tossing up every strawman you can think of in that post, aren't you?

Getting nervous?

[BlackVelvet04]

28. Nope, getting sick of a bunch of lies and pie in the sky

claims to good judgment.

[Joe the Revelator]

34. You were an Edwards supporter 5 days ago.

[BlackVelvet04]

39. So?

I always said Hillary was my second choice. What's your point?

[Joe the Revelator]

44. That you don't have a lot of room to call others out for "pie in the sky" rhetoric.

And why not SUPPORT your candidate instead of attacking other candidates?

[BlackVelvet04]

45. Oh, yeah, Obama supporters never attack

Hillary, do they? Obama demonstrated abysmally poor judgment in his deal with Rezko and that's the truth of the matter.

[Joe the Revelator]

48. I'm going to end this conversataion, because if you are dumb enough to compare the IWR to Rezko

Then you are simply too dumb to talk to. Sorry.

[BlackVelvet04]

55. And you're too stupid to get the point....

it's not about comparing the two it's about GOOD JUDGMENT. Obama claims HE and only HE has great judgment, well bullshit. When he wanted something he couldn't afford he caved to the pressure of his desire and got in bed with an indicated thug. Not a pretty picture, is it?

[Joe the Revelator]

61. Hillary's "judgment" has caused hundreds of thousands of people to die

And you have no proof of any wrong doing by Obama as far as Rezko goes. You're just flinging dirt at the wall.

[rodeodance]

64. Obama's voting for funding has "caused hundreds of thousdans of people to die"

[Joe the Revelator]

65. Only you would equate funding the troops and keeping them safe

to sending them over in the first place. If it weren't for Hillary there would be no need for a funding vote in the first place.

[rodeodance]

71. Get this bozo--THE FUNDING KILLS IRAQI'S AND OUR TROOPS. End of discussion!!

[Joe the Revelator]

Who voted to send the troops over there Rodeoclown?

Once they are over there, you have to make sure they have what they need to stay alive.

[BlackVelvet04]

78. Who lusted after something he couldn't afford and

climbed into bed with an indicted thug to get it?

[PassingFair]

115. I think you're looking for THIS guy....

Isn't this about authorizing the Bush Administration
to launch an UNPROVOKED ATTACK upon the country of
Iraq, killing HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of innocent civilians
and displacing 4 MILLION more?

Isn't this about authorizing a PRE-EMPTIVE attack on another country?

Isn't this about DEATH and RUIN and RAPE?

Barack Obama was speaking out OPENLY against invasion at the time.
I have NO DOUBT that he would have voted NO, as did the MAJORITY
of the DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS in the House, and the MAJORITY of SITTING
DEMOCRATIC MEMBERS IN THE SENATE.

The corporate-funded DLC string-pullers in the Democratic party
WANTED this war, to profit Exxon, Chevron, ad nauseum.

I KNOW the Hillary supporters would like us to pretend that people
have not died and are not DYING as I type this. The war is
"under the radar" as someone posted the other day, and should remain
there for the good of their candidate.

:puke:

I think Obama makes a better candidate because he can DEBATE
the *uckers who drove us into Iraq. Hillary can only purse
her lips and argue about the "manner" in which we "pursued victory".
We tried that losing strategy with Kerry, it is guaranteed to fail.

If Obama is the best candidate only because he wasn't in the Senate
that day to vote, SO BE IT.

Hillary is at FAULT with her vote.

Obama becomes the de-facto "DEFAULT" candidate for every democrat
with a conscience (and eyes and ears) who were WATCHING in the
months leading up to the IWR vote.

I believed at the time that it was our duty to hold those "YEA" voting Senators
and House Members feet to the fire for collaborating with the
Chimperor, whether it was for political expediency or blind stupidity.
Either reason spells: Not my first choice.

[rodeodance]

80. I will stay on the issue of funding.

[BlackVelvet04]

73. Yeah, Hillary did it all by herself.....

and you don't know what Obama would have done because he doesn't know, according to him.

He showed shitty judgment in his deal with Rezko. He showed shitty judgment in wanting something he couldn't afford to the point of getting in bed with an indicated thug. That's the point. He's not mr. clean.

[SOS]

105. And remember folks

There is no difference between authorizing GW Bush the sole determination on whether to attack the wrong country in response to 9/11
and funding US troops in combat.

No difference whatsoever.

:eyes:

[BlackVelvet04]

69. Rezko was already under the federal investigation that lead to his indictment and upcoming trial.

Duh... that's the wrongdoing. Obama said it was boneheaded. It was bad judgment.

[Joe the Revelator]

How many people died because of Rezko?

[BlackVelvet04]

83. Not the point, never was......

the point is Obama wanted something he couldn't afford so badly he made a deal with an indicated thug. THAT'S POOR FRIGGIN' JUDGMENT....it's not boneheaded, it's not irrelevant it displays a lack of character and judgment.

Playing the game of "but Mommy, look what she did" isn't cutting it and I'm not playing that game of diversion any more.

[BlackVelvet04]

66. I said pie in the sky claims to good judgment.....

nice try.

[rodeodance]

68. OBAMA FUNDS THE WAR-and Thousands of Iragi continue to die

[SOS]

100. Entertaining line:

"the fact is he showed incredibly poor judgment in making a deal with Rezko because he wanted something he couldn't afford."

In 1997 Terry McCauliffe invested $100K Gary Winnick's Global Crossing in a sweetheart pre-IPO deal.
Winnick is a golf buddy of Bill Clinton.
McAuliffe cashed out less than 2 years later with a whopping $18 million profit.
McAuliffe then used $1.35 million of his amazingly astute investment profits to buy Bill and Hillary a house in NY which they could not afford on a President's salary.

"You know what most of us do when we want something we can't afford? We don't friggin' buy it."

[BlackVelvet04]

106. Mommy, mommy look what they did...

nice diversionary tactic.

[SOS]

108. Your words...

"You know what most of us do when we want something we can't afford? We don't friggin' buy it."

Does that apply to the Clinton's home in Chappaqua or not?

[bigwillq]

159. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

:shrug:

[otohara]

17. And Hillary Didn't This She Was Voting For War

her excuse is super lame.

[BlackVelvet04]

25. So is saying really bad judgment in doing business with an

indicated thug is "boneheaded". Talk about excuses.

[otohara]

49. How Many People Died

from the relationship with "indicted" thug?

[BlackVelvet04]

53. How many people died because of the funding of the war

Obama voted for?

What kind of judgment is it to be so enthralled with something you can't afford that you get in bed with an indicted thug?

[otohara]

59. The IWR Vote Was The Biggie

stop trying to downplay the importance of her vote and how now she says, she didn't know it was for war.

There wouldn't be funding if there was never the authorization.

[BlackVelvet04]

63. I'm not trying to downplay anything.....

it's the Obama supporters trying to downplay the fact he showed horrible judgment in his deal with Rezko.

[BlackVelvet04]

87. I'm not playing the diversionary game any more....

Obama showed horrible character and judgment by wanting something he couldn't afford so badly he made a deal with an indicated thug.

That's the facts.

[rodeodance]

56. The WAR BELONGS TO BUSH AND HIS NEOCON ADMINISTRATION-GOT IT!!

[otohara]

85. Which of Neocons Said These?

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.
This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction."

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal."

Some of these neocons have since apologized for their vote to give Bush the power to invade and occupy a country, one in particular has not and never will.

[BlackVelvet04]

88. And how does that change the fact that

Obama demonstrated a lack in character and horrible judgment in wanting something he couldn't afford so badly he made a deal with Rezko who was under indictment?

[otohara]

94. Well He's Not Alone

seems that millions of American's have bad judgment - buying homes, cars, what ever and they can't afford it. Yes, yes, he showed bad judgment, but when he did this deal Rezko wasn't yet indicted, but was under investigation. He's apologized for his bad judgment, where as the other candidate has not and never will.

[BlackVelvet04]

102. No, he said it was boneheaded.....

it wasn't boneheaded, it was a lack of judgment.

[otohara]

117. Fine, You Win, He Had BAD Judgement, But

her lack of judgment is partially responsible for killing of perhaps a million people, and the displacement of millions more. The money we're spending on Iraq could provide health care for all Americans, Iraq will suffer the consequences of bad judgment for centuries to come. I can not forgive her, maybe if she would come out and say she was wrong instead of this horse-shit about not knowing it was for war.

I made a decision in 2002, I would not vote for any dem in primary who voted to give that fucking creep in the White House a go on Iraq. I didn't in 04 and won't do it in 08.

I knew they were lying their asses off, why didn't she & 22 other Dems who voted yes? And how many constituents do you think called her office, begging, pleading with her to vote no vs those who called and said yes? She did the exact opposite of what her constituents wanted. How many people world wide and in this country protested again and again against invasion? Fuck the national polls, more Dem's were against this mess from the beginning.

How many constituents called her begging to not vote for Kyl/Lieberman? These votes will come back to haunt her in the GE.

[BlackVelvet04]

158. The money we're spending on Iraq could provide health care for all Americans,

then maybe he should quit voting to fund the war.

[rodeodance]

133. What good would it accomplish at this point? --fodder for RW--Kerry REdux!

[otohara]

148. I Haven't Forgotten

the utter garbage that was reiterated by several democrats to justify their vote to give those monsters a free pass to invade and occupy Iraq. In spite of the calling, world protesting, and begging by their constituents they did just the opposite. It was the most important vote in my lifetime and all of our efforts to get the democrats to do the RIGHT thing failed.

I have a certain Senator, who constantly votes the opposite of what his base wants. I won't be voting for his reelection in 2010. That's fucking BS - I'm sick of supporting candidates who vote the opposite of their base.

[Justice Is Comin]

30. Republicans will trounce him with this

day in and day out.

He makes a speech which is line with 80% of the rest of America at the time, oooh what a brave man. And at a time when he can't lose either way. He's running against a super strong candidate...Alan Keyes :rofl:

Put him in the senate where Hillary was, show me his vote. And then get back to me.

[BlackVelvet04]

42. Truly.....n/t

[smoogatz]

35. But Hillary did. And she voted wrong. And now she's complicit

in the deaths of almost 4,000 Americans and maybe a million Iraqis since the invasion. A million dead, millions more with the horrendous injuries, a failed state, every Iraqi life disrupted, a weaker America, and a trillion dollars in taxpayer wealth down the drain: that's what she voted for. She had a choice at the beginning, and she bet the wrong way. Obama, on the other hand, was prescient in his opposition to the war. Hmmm. Tough choice.

[BlackVelvet04]

38. Obama didn't have to vote....

and he admits he doesn't know what he would have done. You can't run on a record of something you didn't do.

[robbedvoter]

41. And so is Obama for funding a war HE KNEW was stupid. No leg up in my book.

He started well, then said "we don't need to look into how this war was started" - as soon as he got in the senate - then supported it. Lost all high ground with me. As far as the candidates go - war issue is a wash - they both stink.

[rodeodance]

67. yes, but the obamacrybabies continue to shout out about HIl and foregot abour Obama

[BlackVelvet04]

70. And they refuse to admit Obama's judgment

hasn't always been so pure and wonderful....which was the original point.

[rodeodance]

75. using logic on blind-faith folks is useless.

[smoogatz]

98. Give it a try.

I've been hoping one of you could attempt it, at least.

[rodeodance]

116. oh, I have--its a full time job.

[smoogatz]

120. I love you anyway.

Cheeseheads forever!

[rodeodance]

128. cheezeheads forever.

[smoogatz]

101. Nobody's is. But where it counts in terms of matters of the national interest

his track record is superior to Hillary's.

[smoogatz]

84. I disagree. I do wish he'd been more aggressive in trying to end the war

but it's hard to fault him too much for voting in favor of arming and feeding the troops who are already committed. It will take an act of enormous political courage by the next CinC to bring them home: I think we've got a better shot at that with Obama than with Clinton, who's proven with her IWR and Lieberman-Kyl votes that she's very much afraid of rightwing sniping. Hillary's caught in a bind: she'll have to either disavow her IWR vote, or defend it by keeping us in Iraq 'til she leaves office. I can't vote for that.

[rodeodance]

76. Obama voted to FIND the war which has caused 1000's of people to die including our troops

[smoogatz]

86. So has Hillary.

And she still defends her IWR vote. I'd say that makes her 0-for-2.

[Justice Is Comin]

93. No that makes her

ineligible for the label of flipsy flopsy.

Unlike Obama.

[smoogatz]

97. So, is she for the war, or against it?

[Justice Is Comin]

113. She's for getting the military out

and making Iraq deal with their own problems.

McCain's blather about soldiers still being there for a hundred years will be a cake walk for Hillary. But he won't be able to frame it as though she was originally a fence walker in the beginning.

That's the difference. Obama was all over the issue and they will kill him with it.

[smoogatz]

119. So she was for it before she was against it, like Kerry?

Yep—that one worked out real well for us last time. You don't see the irony of your previous post here?

[Justice Is Comin]

141. I'm on the floor here laughing.

You just made my point about Obama.

You don't think a war that has already last longer than WW II is long enough to start to end it? That's the same as waffling? LOL.

Obama is the one that was against it before he was for it. If Obama is on the ticket, they will put his head on Kerry's windsurfing picture.

[smoogatz]

143. Boy, talk about arguing in circles.

Obama opposes the war but votes to arm and feed the troops in the field. Hillary votes to authorize the war AND fund it, and somehow she's more consistently opposed to it than Obama? Gimme some of what you're smoking.

[Justice Is Comin]

147. Watch the swinging gold watch.

Nominate him. The republicans will explain it to you.

[smoogatz]

150. Right.

Because being consistently WRONG (except when it's politically expedient to take the opposite position) is a far stronger position to run from than being right from the get-go AND being enough of a pragmatist to vote in favor of arming and feeding the troops while they're committed to a war. Everybody knows that.

[rodeodance]

114. just so you count Obama in your little twisted saga.

[robbedvoter]

37. And once in the senate, he voted to fund - in spite knowing it was a bad idea

The more people realized the war was a mistake, the more Obama was going FOR it. So, not really something to recommend him over Hillary (and I am not whitewashing her vote - just saying can't pick based on this)

[halobeam]

72. but they are claiming the funding was for the troops.

couldn't they have funded ONLY for the troops and then make them come back w/ proof it went to the troops and if they want more they have to come back again?

[robbedvoter]

122. I am sure Halliburton would agree.

[JVS]

43. That is no excuse for Hillary's voting for it.

[BlackVelvet04]

47. And there is no excuse for

Obama's land deal with Rezko. It was poor judgment.

[JVS]

89. way to change the subject

[BlackVelvet04]

90. No, the Obama supporters changed the subject for the OP....

the subject was Obama's lack of character and judgment in wanting something he couldn't afford and making a deal with someone who was under indictment.

[bigwillq]

160. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

:shrug:

[JVS]

161. I minded my own business in 2004 and I think you should do the same now.

But I certainly didn't vote for him in the primary because there were better alternatives.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

46. Rezko is no worse than Whitewater

It seems the Clinton supporters have learned a lot about how to attack their opponents over non-issues.

[BlackVelvet04]

51. No, it's not a non-issue....

it demonstrates a lack of good judgment, and good judgment is what Obama keeps patting himself on the back for. He wanted something he couldn't afford so badly he got in bed for an indicted thug to get it.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

74. Just like Whitewater!

I knew you'd understand.

[BlackVelvet04]

77. It's really kind of pathetic that not one of you can admit

his judgment sucked. Whitewater, BJ, IWR, blah blah blah.....throw out anything to take the spotlight off a piss poor judgment on Obama's part.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

99. I guess you just don't see the irony

in a Clinton supporter lecturing an Obama supporter about bad judgment.

[BlackVelvet04]

104. I guess you don't see the irony on running on the basis of good

judgment when you have displayed terrible judgment in personal dealings. Saying you have good judgment is a bunch of words....having it is something else. When push came to shove he showed bad judgment.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

109. You mean like when he opposed the war from the start?

As opposed to Clinton? Oh that's right, she was just misled. :eyes:

[BlackVelvet04]

157. and then funded it how many times?

he didn't have to vote, all he had to do was talk. I grant you, he's good at talking. When he was faced with using his much touted good judgment he blew it and made a deal with an indicted thug.

[TankLV]

154. Umm - the Clintons wer EXHONORATED in ALL MATTERS of Whitewater...

convenient how you leave out THAT fact...

the entire REPUKE witch hunt was a WASTE of TAXPAYER dollars...

and - unlike Rezko

- the Clintons LOST money, not MADE money like OBAMA did to the tune of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS...

- Hillary only spent A FEW HOURS occasionally on anything related to Whitewater, while bama spent YEARS working FOR rezko as HIS PERSONAL LAWYER...

I could list others, but your "comparison" is laughable at best...

[AlFromDem]

81. Hillary voting for the IWR was a great show of judgment.

Saddam was a bad guy, and Hillary rightfully recognized that.

[smoogatz]

95. Welcome to DU!

Did the fact that Saddam was a bad guy justify the killing of a million Iraqis and 4,000 Americans, at a cost of a trillion dollars? Because that's what Hillary's great judgment enabled.

[CRH]

103. Obama did not take a position until after IWR, ...

his much touted anti war speech was give Oct 26, 2002 nearly three weeks after the resolution was voted on. Why this escapes so many is beyond me.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

Delivered on 26 October 2002 at an anti-war rally in Chicago by Barack Obama, Illinois Senator.

== end excerpt ==

Prior to that date he was quiet.

[BlackVelvet04]

107. Thanks for the link n/t

[smoogatz]

110. That date is incorrect. The speech was given on Oct. 2, 2002—

eight days before the IWR passed the House vote.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/10/03/obama_touts_initial_stance_on_iraq_war/

[CRH]

124. Ok thanks for clearing that up, ...

I have often wondered why the date had never been challenged. I have seen the later date in several places. Thanks for the correction.

[CRH]

149. I've googled long and hard to find an article written in 2002, ...

of this speech, but I can't find a link. All links refer to articles that were written in 2007, that state it was a five year anniversary. There doesn't seem to be a single link to an article written in 2002 about the then state senator's speech, which should have been news.

You don't happen to have a link to an article written in Oct. 2002 do you?

[VotesForWomen]

111. yep, us usual, obama folks are just projecting whatever they want onto him. nt

[still_one]

118. We do know how Clinton voted though DON'T we? and we do know

that she had NO CONCEPT OF THE WAR POWERS ACT

we also know that there were Democrats who didn't vote for it

Her argument for voting for it was that she trusted this president? THAT ISN'T the point. By voting for the IWR, Congress removed any Congressional oversight for that war, because it effectively overturned the War Powers Act

Incidently, the Viet Name War, which resulted in the War Powers Act, was a war which was also based on a lie

and her policy of how she will deal with Iran is very clear. Instead of engaging in a dialog, she prefers to threaten as a method of diplomacy, which is in effect what the Kyle/Lieberman amendment does, and much more. It also state we should stay in Iraq indefintely, as long as Iran is considered a threat

Indefensible

[PassingFair]

126. Regular DERVISHES, aren't they.

Spinning and spinning.
Like cuckolded wives who WON'T
see the credit card receipts
in their husband's suit coat
pockets.

Who are they going to believe:
Hillary or their LYING EYES?

[Alexander]

121. He didn't vote FOR the war and he spoke out AGAINST it. Unlike Hillary...

Who not only supported it but refuses to apologize for it or admit it was a mistake.

[robbedvoter]

123. But once given the chance to do more than just speak - he did an 180

First he said we shouldn't look into how we got there. Then sent money. To Halliburton. "he used to be smart" - not such a good defense. Joementum - used to be a good guy way back then too.

[SOS]

130. A 180?

Voting to authorize Bush to use the military in Iraq is very different from funding US troops already in combat.
That's not a 180.
Can you name one instance in US history where Congress defunded troops in combat?

[robbedvoter]

136. His first speech in the senate: Let's not look at how we got in this war

To me that was an 180

[Alexander]

132. Quit being dishonest. He funded troops that were already there.

Hillary did the same thing, as did many anti-war Senators. In fact Hillary also voted for Kyl-Lieberman, showing that this is a continued pattern of warmongering for her.

"Joementum - used to be a good guy way back then too."

When Ned Lamont became the Democratic nominee, Obama supported him. He didn't say it's "win-win", which is exactly what the Clintons did. Therefore the Clintons are bigger supporters of Lieberman than Obama ever was.

I see honest debate is not your strong suit.

[robbedvoter]

138. The troops? Blackwater was well known at the time.

[Alexander]

139. Yes, and the fact that not all money went to Blackwater was well known, too.

What's your point?

[robbedvoter]

142. That funding was a support for the war/its profiteers in the first place. And they knew it.

[Alexander]

145. "They"? Including Hillary, who had Bill to rely on for info?

Obama doesn't have an ex-presidential spouse and he didn't sit on the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2002. If Hillary had such information, she should've shared it with Obama.

[rodeodance]

131. oh, the only thing you want to see is her gaveling on her knees begging for forgivenss

[Alexander]

134. No, the only thing I want to hear from Hillary is "I made a mistake".

Apparently that act of humility is beyond her and her supporters. :eyes:

Who else doesn't admit that they've made mistakes? Hmm....

[robbedvoter]

140. "Had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have voted same way." (unlike Kerry

who. during his campaign said he would have still voted yes) Also, her comment was first made in 2004 - the time Kerry said yes.(she was asked: how about you?)

[Alexander]

144. "From my vantage point, the case was not made." - Obama

He has been consistent on this while Hillary has refused not only to apologize, but admit she made a mistake. She couldn't admit it during the debate two nights ago.

[smoogatz]

137. That would be a start.

Perhaps then the families of the dead could find a way to forgive her.

[rodeodance]

146. see post 140. Obama has voted for funding which kills--

[Alexander]

151. At least he didn't vote to put the troops there in the first place.

Pop quiz, hotshot: Which Democratic candidate did?

[smoogatz]

152. So has Hillary. 0-for-2.

Actually, I think it's probably wise to feed and arm our military while it's committed to a war-zone by the CinC. I do wish Obama had been outspoken in arguing against continued funding for the war, and his failure to do so makes him an imperfect candidate IMO. But Hillary's vote for the IWR (and failure to admit her mistake) makes her considerably worse, also IMO. How you can argue that her wrong vote on the IWR is somehow a win for her is beyond me, unless you think the war is a good idea.

[zulchzulu]

127. Go hide your head in the sand

The Rezko issue is something you want to bring up that is COMPLETELY UNRELATED to a trillion dollar war with a million dead.

Hillary voted for the war as well as has plenty of problems with her outsourcing connections and the Hsu family (among others) that far overshadow a real estate deal on a house where it was purchased for almost 90% of the asking price. The 10 foot by 20 yard adjacent plot of land next door bought above the market value is another non-issue.

All the money that Rezko gave to Obama went to charity.

You can run away from Hillary's record, but we know what happened.

[Milo_Bloom]

129. Not knowing is sometimes better than knowing.

We KNOW Clinton lacks the judgement to be President.

At least with Obama, we have a chance he can do the right thing.

[TankLV]

153. the TRUTH is a bitch, isn't it (a bitch for bama...)

REALITY bites...

[Radical Activist]

155. How many candidates had the guts to speak at an anti-war rally?

Kucinich did. But Edwards, Hillary, and even Dean for that matter, were always too play it safe establishment candidates to do something like that.