A vote for Hillary is a pro-Iraq War vote. Why don't Hillary's voters care?

[awaysidetraveler]

It will continue for an indefinite time under Hillary.

?

It will not under Obama's plan.

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

Why don't Hillary's voters care?

[thunder rising]

1. It's politics as usual with the Clintons. Political expedience and spin, change history when needed

[awaysidetraveler]

3. Yep, this war is still the most important question, and Hillary gives no definitive answer.

[neutron]

115. Because the Clinton era was one of PEACE

And Obamites are attacking her for what Bush did with
the vote.

And they are using this as a ploy to avoid Obama's weaknesses which are many

[neutron]

118. You Harp on that Vote because Obama has no Positives

All of his proposals have been mediocre.

He is a nice person, but will be a mediocre president.

[awaysidetraveler]

123. You're right about one thing: Obama will be president, and he'll be president because of this issue.

He's right, we have to leave in a definite way.

There's no other humane solution.

[NursesluvHillary]

142. Why should he be elected bc of this issue? He has been funding the war since he got to DC

[awaysidetraveler]

122. Madness: all HRC needs is this one weakness for being indefinite about this war.

The Clinton era was not one of peace, there were several wars and an ignored threat that led to 9/11.

It was avoidable, all we had to do was not keep permanent bases in Saudi Arabia.

Now she's telling us that if we begin a withdrawl that we'll only have to leave thus and such many soldiers.

That's a recipe for permanent war in the middle east.

[maddiejoan]

2. What nonsense

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/

[awaysidetraveler]

4. Yeah that link gives us no idea when she'll finish pulling out. Why don't you care?

[maddiejoan]

8. I do care

I care enough not to swallow Mr. Obama's empty promises.

He has no idea what Iraq will look like in a year. Neither do you.

[awaysidetraveler]

13. I know exactly what it will look like in one year: no Americans--that's what I want.

And so should you.

[maddiejoan]

143. And Hillary has said as much

But you don't bother to listen to her.

[papau]

21. Agree- O's future action 16m out"maybe"on Iraq differs from Hillary's ASAP 16 month most likely-how?

A deadline that is a a fixed but shaky 16 months for Obama - folks should count his debate stated ifs sometime

versus no deadline Hillary with pullout to begin in 60 days but no formal deadline and with 16 months likely completion.

talk about splitting hairs - and that hair splitting gives us guilt for future dead if one votes for Hillary? - not really

Both leave force protection troops behind plus a quick response ability.

[awaysidetraveler]

30. Papau, I don't see it: a definite we're out is what an Obama vote means. Hillary's an indefinite.

And I have checked his "if's"

They're still way more definite than Hillary's comments. She'll have us in there indefinitely,
and her "likely completion" is just a way of shirking that duty to leave.

If you're anti war, then you've only got one candidate now.

[papau]

109. Perhaps you are correct that Obama's "ifs" are better than ASAP - but in my mind it is not a large

difference.

But you do note that force protection remains (50,000) plus rapid strike (under 10,000) in both plans.

Obama has said no permanent bases - which means we rent space somewhere on 5 year lease

I believe - but can't remember for certain - that Hillary is also into a single lease arrangement rather than claiming Bushes 14 new bases as ours forever.

[awaysidetraveler]

126. In Obama's debate, he stated that the soldiers would be either in Kuwait or offshore.

That's the one in South Carolina.

Furthermore, Obama's stated an understanding of the regional reasons for the war, which is essentially this:
we are infidels (people who are stationed on holy land) and that is the fundamental reason that radicals fight us.

They are fighting a religious war, and we are giving them a reason.
If you're serious about wanting out of this war, then you must also be serious about keeping our troops off of "holy land."

That means no Iraq bases, and it should also mean no Saudi Arabian bases.
Kuwait we could probably get away with, Qatar and Bahrain are also sympathetic.
Afghanistan is a go for as long as it takes to rebuild, but even there we need to get out as fast as possible.
Such is the religious nature of the war we are trapped within.

[OKNancy]

5. Because Bush went to Iraq

not Hillary. I am convinced she would have never done it.
Secondly it is a done deal and her plan to get us out is a good one.
Third, there are other things besides Iraq that are important.
More people die in the US because of bad or no medical treatment than in all the
years in Iraq.

I was against going in and was upset about her vote, but I understand it, just as I
understand why Kerry and Edwards voted for it. I voted for Kerry with no hesitation.

[awaysidetraveler]

14. She would never have done it, but she voted for it. More importantly though, she's staying.

She has no plan to get us out. She makes no promises to leave, just to cut existing forces.

That's a bad plan, because it leaves more of our guys dead and wounded.

What about that don't you get?

[ThatPoetGuy]

6. A vote for Obama is an anti-universal health care vote.

Why don't Obama's voters care? Oh right, they've never met a poor person.

And by the way, Obama's plan WILL continue the Iraq war indefinitely. Or didn't you read the .pdf on that link?

--Just another Edwards voter, disgusted with the remaining choices.

[awaysidetraveler]

7. We've already had this conversation, and while your argument for Edwards had some merit.

There's no arguing for Hillary on this topic. If you're pro-war, then you're pro-Hillary.

[ThatPoetGuy]

16. If you're pro-war, then you're pro-McCain.

That's the honest breakdown, and let's not forget it. Only if we buy into the worst of the hype do we believe that McCain is left-wing or Hillary is right. Hillary and Obama both plan to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq indefinitely. Edwards planned to leave only enough to protect the embassy.

While I find the invasion of Iraq hideous, and pointless, and loathsome, it's not the highest priority for me.

Universal health care. Helping the poor in our own country. LGBT issues. Compassionate action, here in our own land, in our own day-to-day lives. These are the important issues to me. And I can't help feeling that I'm going to be mourning the loss of the Edwards candidacy for the rest of my life, now that the only remaining candidate who speaks passionately about helping the poor is that lunatic Huckabee.

Fuck. I need a drink. But I spent all my liquor money on prescriptions.

[awaysidetraveler]

44. Where are you getting your numbers? You're the guy with the Obama link to me.

Obama's not going to leave tens of thousands of troops in Iraq, and you should know it.

After all, you sent me the link to his plan.

[ThatPoetGuy]

60. His plan would leave enough troops to protect the embassy,

same as Edwards.

But then Obama's plan will leave additional troops -- and yes, I know we've been over this -- to train Iraqi defense forces, and additional troops to protect them, and additional troops to protect civilians, and additional troops to "strike back against al Qaeda." And those are his words, not mine.

How many troops will this take?

"The Center for American Progress estimates that such an undertaking in Iraq would require a force of around 60,000 troops."
-- "Strategic Redeployment 2.0: A Progressive Strategy for Iraq." The Center for American Progress.

[awaysidetraveler]

72. Right and if you check his debates against Edwards....

Then you know that the troops would be stationed elsewhere and only deployed into Iraq to fight terrorist acts.
According to Obama, that is.

However, Hillary will keep them in Iraq indefinitely.

So what I don't understand about your current position is your apparent advocacy of HRC,
if you're against staying in Iraq.

[ThatPoetGuy]

86. I'm not advocating for Hillary, but I'm thinking about it.

Edwards' plan -- protecting the embassy, and nothing else -- would probably require a few thousand full-time troops. It will probably require a few hundred at any given moment, plus more for special visits (ambassadors and such); and then those troops need to sleep, and other troops need to take over.

This damn war. This bloody mess.

I'm torn between Hillary and Obama, still. I consider health care a more important issue than Iraq, and her plan is better than his. Much better. Critics of his plan say it will leave 15 million poor people without coverage. His defenders say, that's ridiculous, it will cover all but 3% of Americans. 3% is nine million people. And that's what his DEFENDERS are saying!

Then there's his attack on mandatory health care. If I were to choose a single word to describe it, I wouldn't be able to go with "deceitful," or with "dishonest." His attack on mandates has been, in a word, evil.

Obama's attack on mandates should be seen in the same light as such despicable smears as Ronald Reagan's attack on "welfare queens," Rush Limbaugh's mockery of "handouts," Dan Quayle's "family values" attack on gays, or the "nanny state." It's a complete fabrication, and it's designed to deceive people into voting against liberal interests.

It's possible that I may still choose him over Hillary. And there's no republican who might even tempt me to cross the aisle, so I'll be voting for Hillary or Obama. But his attack on universal health care has proven that he doesn't give a damn about people. He'll deliberately deceive people into voting against their own health and against their families if it helps him get elected.

[awaysidetraveler]

108. Even if that were true, Iraq matters more than your health care for moral reasons.

Think about it.

I'm writing from Istanbul, and I keep seeing burn victims and refugees, searching for work.

Look though, you don't have to decide between your health care and your position on Iraq.

Obama's plan just attacks the problem from a different angle: he's going at it from the angle of getting the cost down.
A mandate for health insurance won't solve my problems, because I still won't be able to afford the health care.
What you need is cheap health care, and that's Obama's plan.

Anyway, why would you think that the author of Hillary care--this backroom deal that failed in 1993--would solve that problem?

I think maybe you need to clarify your point of view a little.

[awaysidetraveler]

9. I also disagree with your analysis of Obama's health-care plan, but save that for a different post.

Please.

[bvar22]

82. A vote for Hillary is an anti- Universal HEALTHCare vote.

Hillary does NOT have a HealthCare Plan.

Hillary has a MANDATORY Private (For Profit) Health Insurance Plan.

BIG difference.

Dennis Kucinich was the ONLY candidate offering a HealthCare Plan.
Edwards came close.

[OhioChick]

10. "Why don't Hillary's voters care?"

Good Question.

[awaysidetraveler]

11. Yeah, I'm not getting any answers either. Maybe they don't know.

Or they can't answer.

[OhioChick]

17. Most Likely...

"They Can't Answer."

[papau]

24. Read upthread

[CoffeeCat]

12. What bothers me the most about Hillary on Iraq...

...is that Hillary KNEW it was a lie--when she voted on it.

The neocons asked her husband for war, in 1998, when he was
President. He declined their advances. Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz,
Armitage, John Bolton all signed a letter to then-President
Clinton, making their case for Iraq war.

Here is a copy of that letter:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

As Hillary stood on the floor of the Senate, and claimed that
there was an Al Queda link to Saddam, and echoed Bush's
talking point about Saddam possible having nuclear weapons--she
understood that these were the same players who had asked
her husband for the exact war with Iraq--in 1998.

She knew the neocon game. She knew they'd been
shopping around this war for years.

Yet, she went along. Furthermore, she said nothing about
the neocons' overtures to her husband. She could have
stopped the Iraq war. It's bizarre that most people haven't
screamed that from the rooftops. All she had to do was pull
out a copy of that letter to her husband, and point out the
fact that these neocon warmongers have been looking for
an open door to war with Iraq--and they were using Sept 11
fear to blast that door wide open.

This is the main reason that I cannot support her. Throw
in her refusal to apologize for the vote and her "yes"
on Kyl/Lieberman---and that's it for me.

She knows, better than anyone--that Iran is their next
target. Yet, she voted "yes" on Kyl/Lieberman, further
catapulting the propaganda for the Bush administration.

I don't know how good Democrats ignore this, or believe
that it doesn't matter.

[awaysidetraveler]

18. Yeah, this is what I'm talking about. A vote for Hillary is a pro-war vote.

Thanks for the link!

[CoffeeCat]

19. She's not only "pro war", she's in on the fix...(nt)

[awaysidetraveler]

33. She's definitely indefinite about leaving--that much is certain, and it's all one needs to know.

About whether or not a vote for Hillary is pro-war.

[CoffeeCat]

46. She knows that the neocons have Iran in the crosshairs...

...but she votes to declare an arm of the Iranian government "a terrorist organization"

??????????

We're in the run-up to war with Iran---just as we were in a run-up before war with Iraq.

Greasing the wheels of Iran propaganda isn't exactly a "pro peace" stance in my book.

[awaysidetraveler]

59. Yeah, Iran as well... it's more than a little on the scary side.

It's particularly creepy from the perspective of staying in Istanbul, where I'm writing from now.

[arewenotdemo]

48. Excellent point. She already knew first-hand about the insane Israel-first

neocon crew, from Herr Perle ("our children will sing great songs"), to Herr Wolfowitz, et al.

She knew. And, after 9/11, she deemed it safer politically to vote with them.

[Individualist]

53. Absolutely.

The "if I knew then what I know now" BS is a lie. She's a DLC member and knew very well what she was voting for.

[TexasObserver]

15. Yes, she voted wrong, and Yes, she hasn't been right on Iraq

I agree. That's one reason when it comes to Hillary v. Obama, I have to choose Obama.

But how many times a day do you think this thought needs to be aired out?

Do you really think anyone here doesn't know these facts?

Do you really think there is anyone reading the thread who is on the fence on this topic?

How many licks do you expect to administer to this dead horse?

Hillary is wrong on Iraq. Started wrong, stayed wrong, still wrong. But must there be a thread every hour to confirm it? There are so many current issues on which she is vulnerable. Pick one. Diversify. Or better yet, don't start threads. You can't possibly come up with one that isn't on the board today already.

[awaysidetraveler]

22. Interesting.

Okay, thanks for the comment.

I'm not convinced that this horse is dead.

I think that there are a lot of women out there who think that Hillary's
warm and fuzzy appeal will eventually get us out of Iraq.

There is no place that she is more vulnerable, I believe.

Still, I see your point. Are you organizing alternate threads?

[TexasObserver]

58. Thanks for your measured response.

You asked what I'm doing about threads, and I'll tell you.

First, I put on IGNORE everyone who was posting flamebait, no matter who they were shilling for. It's no secret that most of those are Hillary supporters, or at least claim to be. Some are Obama supporters. Some appear to be general purpose disruptors. Eliminate those people and you eliminate 90% of the problems.

Second, I use HIDE THREAD to rid my screen of the first dozen threads I see on the board which strike me as useless, unnecessarily repetitive, or more of the same inflammatory stuff I've already tried to clear out.

Third, I try to comment primarily on threads I believe have some value for discussion purposes. I chose yours because you don't seem to be a person trying to stir up shit unnecessarily. I fully understand why posters can't get past Hillary's Iraq war vote, support, and continuing weak bullshit. I agree with your position. I just don't understand how someone starts a thread on a topic without looking at the first page of GDP and seeing it is already covered several times.

[awaysidetraveler]

65. Okay, good point.

You're right, I just feel strongly about it because I'm hanging out in Istanbul, and there's been
an influx of burn victims.

Iraqis showing up in the city, even though it's illegal and searching for work.
It's more than a little depressing, and I just want to shout reality at the Hillary supporters for a bit.

Not in an offensive way,
but in a straitforward way.

However, I will take your advice,
and I will try not post this kind of repeating thread in the future.

[TexasObserver]

80. Thanks for the info about the burn victims. May I suggest ...

That's the kind of thing to lead with. That would be a great title to a thread and much more effective. Such as ...

Burn Victims From Iraq Arriving in Istanbul

That is a great lead in to your position that the IWR is still claiming victims. That makes your thread on the topic new and unique.

I feel bad for ragging on you, now, it's so obvious you're so sincere. Please accept my apology.

[awaysidetraveler]

83. Oh hey man,

You're not ragging!

You're definitely not ragging!

You've got nothing to apologize about at all!

I'm just pissed off about the horror and the American denial,
and that's all.

Yeah... maybe you're right.

I'll try that as a thread.

Hey thanks,

Peace.

[CoffeeCat]

27. I agree with you that this topic...

...has been brought up a lot. However, each time it is discussed, many arrive
and claim that she isn't pro war, and that she voted right on Iraq, or that
she didn't know the "Iraqi War Resolution" was a vote for war.

People argue vociferously that reality is...just not reality.

I really worry about our party, when it comes to this issue.

We don't want every post about this topic, but it is healthy
to talk about it.

Furthermore, not only were her votes WRONG, but the Republicans
will eviscerate her on Iraq. First she voted FOR it, then
she voted to FUND it, now she comes out AGAINST it. NOW,
she also claims that her vote on a resolution titled, "Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002" was a vote to ensure
that the inspectors go back in and do their job--not for war.

She's on record in these debates, saying that she didn't think Bush would
go to war. There was not a person in this country who thought that.
And she'll have to defend all of that against John McCain. It's crazy.

People really need to think about this. What if there is a terrorist
attack on our soil before the election--and we've got Hillary and her
flip-flopping baggage? We will be sunk beyond repair.

All of this is very upsetting, and I don't think enough people get it.
Maybe that's why so many people repeat these points. I know it baffles
me that anyone would want all of this attached to any Dem candidate.

[TexasObserver]

62. Frankly, Scarlet, I DO give a damn!!

What can I say? I agree with every word you said. Please see my latest response to the thread starter, for my explanation to her.

[calmblueocean]

43. Interesting point.

I don't know. Her Iraq War Vote is so personally offensive to me, and there have been so many threads minimizing it, pretending it "doesn't matter", that I can see why it keeps coming up.

But as a Democrat, I'm loathe to diversify my criticisms against her too much. I may have to vote for her.

[TexasObserver]

64. Yes, I know. Right after that I had rant to about the IWR myself.

In another thread, one with a poll.

I do not disagree with anyone here who is still appalled with Hillary's ambition driven Iraq positions, and her refusal to get right on it.

[awaysidetraveler]

75. Please send a link, I still need to rant.

It would do me some good.

[TexasObserver]

78. I'll do it!! When I stumble across it next time.

You can vote, too.

[Ediacara]

107. As right as Obama is on this, during the last debate I kept thinking to myself:

"Shut up already! 'I told you so' only goes so far."

[OHdem10]

20. We do not the propaganda. . Here is the truth. HRC is not

going to be running around starting wars.

If the circumstances arise and Obama is president he will go to war.
Otherwise he will not be elected.

[awaysidetraveler]

23. Hillary will be in Iraq indefinitely, and that's not propaganda.

[Jai4WKC08]

41. Not propaganda. A lie.

Hillary will not keep military forces in Iraq indefinitely. That's a lie, pure and simple.

You can say it over and over, but it doesn't make it true, and it doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already believe the way you do.

I am voting for Hillary on Tuesday precisely because I know she and her team are the best qualified to bring the troops home safely and with the least chance that they may need to be sent back in the future.

[awaysidetraveler]

47. You'll have to prove that claim, if you wish to call me a liar. Where's Hillary's withdrawl date?

And I mean the final one.

I want a definite no war candidate, and that's no Hillary.

[ErnestoG]

71. *crickets*

[Jai4WKC08]

146. You said "indefinitely"

No one can give you a specific date. If they do, they are either lying to you, or they don't know what's involved in the process.

Hillary will get the troops out safely. She is no more a "war candidate" than Obama is.

Not voting for whichever one gets the nomination is the EXACT same thing as voting for McCain. Now there's your war candidate. Go ahead and elect him.

[ErnestoG]

70. Ironically enough, which is longer than McCain's "100 years"

[bigwillq]

25. Did you vote for Kerry in 2004?

:shrug:

[awaysidetraveler]

34. A definite "no" to the Iraq war is what America needs now.

[bigwillq]

40. You didn't answer my question (nt)

[PassingFair]

37. Only when all the other choices had been eliminated, BigWillq!

When he came out and saluted and said "Reporting for duty",
I knew we were SUNK...

We needed a clear-cut candidate to go up against
their lies. Of course, our own party and the media shot him down.

[bigwillq]

39. Yeah I didn't like that line either.

I was a big Dean supporter too.

[milkyway]

26. The war-making wing of the Democratic party.

[mondo joe]

28. It didn't stop me from voting for Kerry in 2004. Did it stop you?

[awaysidetraveler]

35. So you're pro war?

[mondo joe]

42. No, not at all. NT

[Big Blue Marble]

29. Because winning is everything.

They scream at Bush for this damn war. Yet they rationalize Hillary's authorization for that same war.

Sadly, they have no shame. And where will they be, if she would authorize an nuclear attack on Iran?

[JoePhilly]

31. A vote against Hillary (in the General) is a PRO IRAQ WAR vote too ....

That's right ...

Vote for whoever you want in the Primaries ....

But if she wins the Democratic nomination ... and you vote against her ... or you render a non-vote, you staying home ... then you have voted (explicitly or implicitly) to continue the Iraq war ...

And while you might argue that you THINK she will continue it ... she has said publicly that she will END IT.

Not one of the Republicans have said that ...

So if you let one of them get in office ... either by voting for them, or by not voting at all ... you have voted for CONTINUING the IRAQ WAR.

[awaysidetraveler]

38. Republicans also say they'll "End it", by staying forever. How's that leaving Iraq?

You're going to have to do better than this to rally me to Hillary's side.

She's already a disreputable candidate.

Why would I believe an indefinite "I'll end it" from Hillary Clinton?

[JoePhilly]

74. Do you trust THEM (republicans) more than HER?

Whether you realize it or not ... You are about to make the same vote she did ... to trust a Republican President to do the right thing, or not.

She trusted the Republican President ... and that was a mistake.

Are you willing to Trust John Insane McCain to end the Iraq war?

Are you willing to Trust Mitt "double Guantanamo" Romney to end the Iraq war?

And with regard to Supreme court justices ... do you trust the Republicans more than Hillary?

You may not like her ... you may not trust her very much ... but do you trust them MORE?

Hold your nose if you have to, but if she wins the nomination, you need to vote for her .... and not for them.

[awaysidetraveler]

79. I just can't do that this time.

It's too many lies.

It's too many distortions.

And the matter is too vital.

If Hillary wins this nomination, it means that there is no anti-war vote.

It's not only a question of integrity,

Hillary also hasn't proven her position differs from republicans on Iraq in a substantive way.

Pulling out half way is the same as ensuring a permanent war in Iraq.

[JoePhilly]

84. Then you are voting to ENSURE the war continues under a Republican ...

And you can rationalize that any way you want.

Hillary voted badly, before the war, FINE ... but you will be voting badly KNOWING that McCain or Romney WILL DEFINITELY continue this war just as if Bush was still President.

If she wins the Dem nomination ... then you have no choice if you REALLY want the war to end.

Do you really believe that she will continue the war LONGER than McCain or Romney?

[awaysidetraveler]

88. Staying indefinitely--what Hillary supports--is a recipe for permanent war.

That's what some Americans don't seem to get: the indefinite part of her solution is the same as no solution,
and that's due to the nature of Iraqi and muslim cultural identity.

You see, the word "infidel" refers to someone who puts up a base on "holy land".
And as long as we're on "holy land" there will be a religious reason for desperate people to kill American soldiers.

So you see, indefinite solutions are identical to no solution at all.
Either we leave in a complete way, or we're at war in Iraq.

You can rationalize that continuing war any way you want,
but I know what a vote for Hillary means.

Otherwise, she'd state it in a definite way,
and I think you know that--in your heart--you must know that.

[JoePhilly]

92. So will you vote McCain or Romney?

[awaysidetraveler]

94. I will not vote if Hillary is elected.

I see voting for Hillary as immoral.

It would be acting as if voting mattered, when it no longer does.

[JoePhilly]

111. Then you have implicitly voted for McCain or Romney ... which is even more morally repugnant.

We can be ABSOLUTELY sure that they will continue the war with out end.

Hillary says she will not.

By your inaction, you will be supporting them and ENSURING an endless war.

Get off the high horse ...

[awaysidetraveler]

114. We can be absolutely sure that by remaining indefinitely, we are ensuring permanent war.

As long as we define ourselves as infidels by remaining on their holy land,
we are ensuring that they will fight us.

Make no mistake: you are advocating the continuation of this war.

[demo dutch]

145. That's the problem w/the Dems, they pull a Nader, Repugs win! Leave it

up to the Dems, you can bet they'll screw it up AGAIN!

[incapsulated]

32. Maybe because that is bullshit?

Rack your brain.

[awaysidetraveler]

36. So you have a definite date that Hillary says she's leaving by? First I've heard of it.

And that's not bullshit.

It's dead Americans.

[incapsulated]

49. Did you watch the debate?

What did she say?

She wants out and assumes most of them will be out within a year.

Of course, she isn't giving you an exact date because that would be absurd.

[awaysidetraveler]

54. No--not absurd--it would be a plan. And Obama won that argument.

[Zynx]

45. When last I heard, we will be out of there under her plan.

I agree that we can't just up and leave in a single week. We have to secure all of our equipment, make sure all our civilian workers get out, and help the Iraqis who helped us in good faith. That takes time. Rushing out of the war all at once is as dumb as rushing into it in the first place. This isn't a yes or no issue. This is complicated. I was always opposed to the war and I was pissed off when Hillary voted for it, but I am prepared to forgive and move on.

[awaysidetraveler]

51. If you're ready to move on, take your cue from "Move On" and we'll move out of Iraq.

That's moving on in a definite way.

www.moveon.org

[Zynx]

52. That was a little funny, but mostly lame.

I have a hard time slipping a piece of paper between Hillary and Obama's positions.

[awaysidetraveler]

56. To tell you the truth, I don't think there's anything funny at all about Hillary's position.

But then again, I see Iraq burn victims every now here in Istanbul,
and it bothers me on a moral level
that anyone has any questions at all
about what kind of a candidate we need in office now.

[JoePhilly]

95. So if Hillary wins the Primary, do you vote for McCain or Romney?

[awaysidetraveler]

103. I will not vote, if Hillary wins.

It's immoral.

It would be like ignoring what's going on here in Istanbul,
and I can't do that.

[JoePhilly]

148. Then by your inaction, you will be helping extend McCain's 100 year Iraq war.

[Guaranteed]

50. Frankly?

It's stupidity.


Very, very short attention spans. Or ignorance, unfamiliarity.

Anyone who was around here before 2005, though, should know better.

[Zynx]

55. Wow that wasn't offensive at all.

I used to be opposed to Hillary due to this very point, but I've determined that I can move on and look ahead.

[Guaranteed]

61. What makes you think they're going to be any different this time around?

She's even running her campaign in exactly the same way as Bill governed '93-'01 and they led '02-'07.

Exact. Same. Shit.

[Zynx]

77. The vast bulk of what the Clintons support is not materially different than

what Obama supports.

[awaysidetraveler]

85. The indefinite date of departure is a vast difference:

Obama gets us out in sixteen months, which removes us from the area, leaving it to the Iraqis to sort out.

That's no happy ending, but the alternative is not a solution.

Staying indefinitely--what Hillary supports--is a recipe for permanent war.

That's what some Americans don't seem to get: the indefinite part of her solution is the same as no solution,
and that's due to the nature of Iraqi and muslim cultural identity.

You see, the word "infidel" refers to someone who puts up a base on "holy land".
And as long as we're on "holy land" there will be a religious reason for desperate people to kill American soldiers.

So you see, indefinite solutions are identical to no solution at all.
Either we leave in a complete way, or we're at war in Iraq.

[Zynx]

132. I don't get that out of what Hillary says at all.

[awaysidetraveler]

137. Do a little research on the reasons for the Iraq war and the substance of the koran.

It will clarify the issue: radical Islam fights us because we are stationed on their land.
If we stay, we will continue the war in a permanent way.

Hillary is not leaving in a definite way, which means that there will continue to be war in Iraq.
There is no median position on this: either we're there and fighting or we're gone and not.

This issue couldn't be clearer from the perspective of the middle east,
where the Islamic faith is readily understood;
and, this issue couldn't be more convoluded from the perspective of the American media,
which offers no reason for the suicide bombers.

Do your homework carefully here: a vote for Hillary is a vote for permanent war,
because a vote for Hillary is a vote for permanent bases and an indefinite timeline of departure.

[awaysidetraveler]

57. I'm hoping for unfamiliarity.

[Ediacara]

63. So... is a vote for Obama a vote for gay-bashing and 15M uninsured?

[awaysidetraveler]

90. No, Obama has a pro LGBT stance, even if it's not as strong as you'd like.

And 15 million uninsured doesn't sound right either.

However, this is not that thread.

If you'd like to write about those issues, please bring them up in a different thread.

[Ediacara]

105. So I can't ask a question?

Sorry, I wanted to engage in the same overly hyperbolic language that the OP did.

Sue me.

ON EDIT: the gay-bashing reference is to Donnie McClurkin (you and I have had this conversation before, don't act like this is news to you), and the 15M uninsured is STRAIGHT OUT OF OBAMA'S MOUTH.

[awaysidetraveler]

130. Obama disagreed with the 15 mil. number in the last debate.

And Obama still supports your rights to civil-unions and adoption rights,

which is as much as you'll ever get from Hillary.

And which might be more, given her history of lies.

Though I respect your anger over Donnie McClurkin, and I think Obama was wrong in the way he handled that incident.

[ErnestoG]

66. The don't care because they want this to go away. Which it won't.

If anything the Rethugs are going to make a three ring circus out of it.

[dailykoff]

67. A lot of Hilly supporters also support the war

and want to see it expanded into Iran. Of course they don't admit it here. Others basically don't give a shit about Muslims. Others drank the 9111 Koolaid. Others are so fixated on personal issues they don't give a flying fuck about anything but whatever the hell they think Hilly is going to give them permission to do.

[ErnestoG]

69. they are more honest than their candidate about it.

[dailykoff]

73. True. But hilly is a master of getting out several messages at once.

Those who back her on the war know she's going to keep us there for keeps. To the general public, she gives her mealy-mouthed debate performance about being "misled."

[JoePhilly]

98. Then I guess you will be voting for McCain or Romney?

Because we can be SURE that they will end the war faster, right?

Do you trust them more?

[dailykoff]

100. No I'm voting for Obama, and I have no doubt he'll win the primary

and general on the strength of this issue alone. Sorry to break it to you.

[JoePhilly]

151. Good vote for Obama in the Primary ... but if Hillary is the nominee ...

and you sit home, and then McCain win the General, then you will have helped make that happen. And we KNOW he'd be fine to stay in Iraq 100 years.

btw ... I like Obama, and may vote for him .... but it will probably be decided by the time the primaries reach my state ... so I have to plan to vote for which ever Dem wins the primary.

[BringBigDogBack]

68. That's a great question.

[boston bean]

76. if this is truly your belief, you have not been paying attention.

They both have the same plan on withdrawing from Iraq.

[awaysidetraveler]

81. Then why doesn't Hillary come out and say when we're leaving?

Because she has no vote from me until she says as much.

And I'm not alone in my lack of faith in her hippie where-with-all.

She voted this war into being, after all.

And she voted Iran into being deemed a terrorist state.

I'm a hippie--she's no damn hippie!

[boston bean]

87. Obama does not have an actual date either. I believe Hillary wants troops out in1-1 1/2 years.

She will begin immediate withdrawal once sworn in. which is what obama says too.

[awaysidetraveler]

91. Obama says 1 year to 16 months, and Hillary gives no definite date.

Staying indefinitely--what Hillary supports--is a recipe for permanent war.

That's what some Americans don't seem to get: the indefinite part of her solution is the same as no solution,
and that's due to the nature of Iraqi and muslim cultural identity.

You see, the word "infidel" refers to someone who puts up a base on "holy land".
And as long as we're on "holy land" there will be a religious reason for desperate people to kill American soldiers.

So you see, indefinite solutions are identical to no solution at all.
Either we leave in a complete way, or we're at war in Iraq.

You can rationalize that continuing war any way you want,
but I know what a vote for Hillary means.

Otherwise, she'd state it in a definite way,
and I think you know that--in your heart--you must know that.

[boston bean]

96. you need to do some more research

[awaysidetraveler]

97. Really? Where's your link to her definite date of departure from Iraq? I want it.

You need to get some real hippies.

[JoePhilly]

101. She said she'd start to draw down in 60 days in the debate the other night.

Do you trust McCain or Romney more?

[awaysidetraveler]

112. And she said nothing about when she would leave, because she's not going to leave.

That I trust.

McCain, Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton could all be discovered together half-naked doing voodoo rituals
for all I care.

I know they'll all kill more of us Americans--Americans, us guys--remember us?
That's what matters about this vote, and I won't vote for this war.

It's an issue of integrity.

[JoePhilly]

150. If McCain wins, you will have helped him do it.

[awaysidetraveler]

99. Or are you referring to your claim that Obama has no definite date either? Prove it.

Obama was always against the war, and he has a definite date of departure.

He's stated it repeatedly for a reason: he wants us to know that he's not going back on his promises.

Hillary says no such thing.

Why?

[Ediacara]

110. The same reason you can't give an exact time you'll arrive at work on Monday

Of course, the goal is to arrive at 8:00, but traffic, illness, emergencies etc can delay that.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[ArkySue]

89. That's about the stupidest thing I've ever heard!

Here's a dollar, go buy a clue.

[awaysidetraveler]

93. Really, so you have a link telling me where Hillary gives a date for leaving Iraq?

[JoePhilly]

102. McCain's date is 100 years ... you voting for him?

[awaysidetraveler]

120. No, I'm not voting for either side, because I have no anti-war candidate if Hillary wins.

What is wrong with you?

You like burn victims and dead soldiers?

That's what HRC is so indefinite about.

[JoePhilly]

149. Then you should sit quietly if McCain wins and we stay 100 years.

[Captain_Nemo]

104. Because your post is indicative of faulty reasoning. ONe does not equal the other.

[awaysidetraveler]

116. So when will Hillary leave Iraq? Please, send me a post.

Otherwise we're there indefinitely.

[McCamy Taylor]

106. Oooo. Another Democratic helps the Republicans with their fall propaganda.

I hear that one of Karl Rove's minions gets their horns every time that happens.

[awaysidetraveler]

119. So when's Hillary leaving Iraq then? What cause do I have to celebrate? Or vote at all?

[Tektonik]

113. A vote for Obama and Hillary will amount to the same foreign policy wise

Neither of them will pull out the troops immediately, and both of them will continue to be hawkish in the war on terror.

[dailykoff]

117. I think you're deluding yourself.

Bill "35 years of experience" Clinton got very comfortable deploying the gigantic US military capacity and by the end was wagging the dog like a true puke. Hilly has never failed to vote up genocide and there's no reason to think she won't keep delivering the bacon to Exxon-Halliburton and all her other friends.

[Tektonik]

121. and Obama has voted to fund the war and didn't show up for the Iran vote

I'm not saying I like either of their positions, but I believe they are just as bad as the other.

[dailykoff]

125. Hilly voted FOR both wars. Obama voted for NEITHER

and spoke clearly and forcefully against the first. And Hilly has that "experience" with Bill which is also incriminating if you care to look closely.

[Tektonik]

127. Obama could not vote for the IWR and did not show up for the Iran vote

Obama was not in the senate for the IWR and had no knowledge of the intelligence the senators received before making their votes.

Obama could have voted no on the Iran vote, but he decided that going to war again was not important enough of an issue.

Both candidates suck on the these issues.

[awaysidetraveler]

133. Obama will leave Iraq definitely, not Hillary. Also, Obama leaves no permanent bases.

Again not so with Hillary.

Essentially, Obama's position can lead to peace. Hillary's cannot, because permanent bases is what
religious fanatics call being an "infidel" and will lead to more suicide attacks, terrorism, etc.

Therefore, if you're pro peace, you're pro-Obama.
Hillary isn't even an option, if you're against this war.

[Tektonik]

135. pro peace was Kucinich

Obama's voting record and lack thereof does not indicate him to be pro peace, and neither does his language towards Iran and Pakistan.

[dailykoff]

136. Tom Hayden endorsed Obama

because he thinks he's the most likely to end the war. What he said was that we the people have to push whoever wins into taking a more aggressively anti-war position, and I think we are.

[Tektonik]

139. I respect Tom Hayden, but I think he is wrong

I do not see the difference between Hillary and Obama on the war on terra, and I wish I could vote for a Dem I did not revile.

[awaysidetraveler]

140. The difference is simple: Obama will leave, leaving no bases and in a definite way.

Hillary will not.

[Tektonik]

141. I'm not so sure

http://origin.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/

'In January 2007, he introduced legislation in the Senate to remove all of our combat troops from Iraq by March 2008.'

The phrase 'combat troops' is worrisome to me. Are we allowed to keep troops there forever as long as we do not have our troops patrolling the neighborhoods seeking out enemies?

'Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.'

Now, how can al Qaeda create a base in Iraq if al Qaeda as an organization does not really exist. It's an amorphous union of opportunistic extremists. Who decides what an al Qaeda base is or is not?

Have you seen the embassy in Baghdad, that thing is a base in itself almost. How many troops would be needed to protect that structure alone?

'Obama will launch the most aggressive diplomatic effort in recent American history to reach a new compact on the stability of Iraq and the Middle East. This effort will include all of Iraq’s neighbors — including Iran and Syria. This compact will aim to secure Iraq’s borders; keep neighboring countries from meddling inside Iraq; isolate al Qaeda; support reconciliation among Iraq’s sectarian groups; and provide financial support for Iraq’s reconstruction.'

How do we keep Iraq's borders secure? Do we build permanent bases on the outskirts of Iraq without being in Iraq? Do we patrol the borders with aircraft and bomb it periodically?

What if Iran and Syria do not comply. Do we invade them too?

Are we going to base troops w/in our Allies' borders to keep Iraq's borders secure?

Financial support for reconstruction? Are we going to keep funding Halliburton for their great work? :sarcasm:




Now I realize I'm reading in between a lot of lines, but from his voting record, I deem him to be full of shit. I do not trust Obama, and if he does become president I hope he'd prove me wrong.

[guruoo]

152. That's about the size of it. IMO.

We'll be there for at the very least one year after the election no matter who wins.

[Evergreen Emerald]

124. Because that is a big fat stupid lie. That is why Hillary supporters don't care

A vote for Clinton will stop the war.

YOu are making crap up.

[awaysidetraveler]

128. If I'm lying, then prove it: show me a statement with a date of departure, or of no permanent bases.

Can you do that, or are you only here to be insulting?

[Evergreen Emerald]

129. ohmygod. how many times do we have to argue this on DU?

OBAMA AND CLINTON HAVE THE SAME PLAN FOR GETTING THE TROOPS OUT. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM.

[awaysidetraveler]

131. Then where's the link? Where's the proof? I want a withdrawl date and a statement about no bases.

That's what an anti-Iraq war position amounts to--that's the substance of it.
Anything else is a recipe for more war.

So if you're serious about the body bags,
the burn victims and dismembered,
you should know where to stand now:
a vote for Hillary is a vote for more war.

[annie1]

134. ok. a vote for obama is a maybe he woulda voted yay, or maybe nay. NO ONE KNOWS

[awaysidetraveler]

138. That's unimportant: Obama will leave Iraq definitely, and Hillary will not.

Moreover, it amounts to a permanent occupation,
which will lead us into a permanent state of war.

That's why I'm so vehemently against Hillary.
I'm against this war.

[demo dutch]

144. A Garbage Statement! The country has moved on to the economy

The obsession with the resolution vote is not nearly as important as geting out, and she wants to get us out!

[AX10]

154. Yes she does!

Also, the economy is the most important issue right now.

[ileus]

147. She'll bring us 50 states in November, then she'll be able to reveal her real plan.

Hilary is doing what she has to do to get moderate votes, after she's elected she'll be able to move back left.

Trust her won't you, after all she's a clinton....who do you put your faith in?

[JoePhilly]

153. A vote AGAINST Hillary in the general is PRO-Iraq war vote ...

As is a non-vote.

McCain and Romney are 100% certain to continue the Iraq war, period.

You may not like Hillary, but if you don't vote for her in the General, then you have helped the neocons continue the war, perhaps for 100 years ... McCain's exact words.

[DutchLiberal]

155. Obama voted to fund and continue the war 100% of the time. Why don't his supporters care?

If the Iraq War had been the deciding element, Kucinich should have won.