May I say something.....as an interested onlooker from outside your country?

[glarius]

I've been reading the posts here screaming that Hillary is as guilty as Bush for the war, since she voted to let him declare war. As I remember it, the attack on 9/11 happened and everyone was thrown into a state of shock. People (ordinary citizens, politicians, journalists et al) were sort of initially frozen in a panic state. Unsure of how to react to Bush (decidedly a war monger) when he started revving up the war drums. Nobody wanted to seem like they weren't willing to respond with force to the horror they had just experienced.
To my mind, it is understandable that most of your congresspeople were sucked into Bush's war.
Don't you think that what is important now...in the present, is how you get out of it? Why the pointless dwelling on the past and casting blame? Don't you think that what you must decide is which one, Hillary or Obama can get you out in the best way?
I say this with affection and hope I'm not being presumptuous.:loveya:

P.S....I see many of you don't agree with my perspective. As I said, I'm an onlooker from afar. Of course you all know best what happened in your own country. I'm not presuming to tell you what to think, just how it appeared to me. I can only wish you the best. Here's to the best possible outcome in your coming election. :toast:
P.S.#2...I would be happy to see either Hillary or Barack as president!

[ingac70]

1. She voted to go to war a year later...

and 21 other Senators had the good sense to vote no.

[neutron]

13. And Obama voted for a lot of Pro War stuff after

his initial "NO" vote.
(that is when Obama troubled himself to vote)

[ingac70]

22. "A lot of Pro War Stuff"??

You mean like funding, so Chimpy wouldn't leave our troops to die in that hell hole and blame it on Democrats?

[BlackVelvet04]

26. Bullshit....

there's always enough money to bring the troops home.

[ingac70]

29. Bush wouldn't bring them home...

he'd leave them there to languish and blame it on DEMs.

[bellasgrams]

40. BO never voted, he wasn't in the Senate, and has said he didn't

know how he would have voted. Now that was last week, we may have a different story now.

[sniffa]

46. I know

How dare he give our troops body armor. It's fucking sickening. :puke:

[BringBigDogBack]

71. Pro war stuff

LMAO.

Only a fucking moron would vote to not give our soldiers food and equipment. The soldiers were already in Iraq, remember, thanks to those who authorized. They weren't coming home, one way or another.

Some people are so fucking dense, it's almost unbelievable.

[Skittles]

2. with all due respect

lots of us kept our heads after 9/11 - LOTS of us

[MichiganVote]

3. I do but I seem to be in a minority.

[gasoline highway]

Historically speaking...

...governments have used blind patriotism to start phony wars. I'm sure there were plenty of educated people who realized this, besides the ones blindsided by the media. Hillary knew the difference and knew what she was getting into.

[MichiganVote]

14. Is it possible to be blind and patriotic? The country was awash with fear and confusion.

blind patriotism. phony wars. educated people. media.

Lot more went into this whole mess that one freshman senator.

[bellasgrams]

43. You read minds or the future? How do you do on lotto tickets?

[Auntie Bush]

52. Please do me a favor

Go back where you came from. Thanks!

[PassingFair]

4. Not to mention 126 House Members.

Who also voted NAY.


It was a cynical, horrible vote.

She deserves to do penance for it.

I would HATE for anything like it to happen again.

Wouldn't YOU?

[Nitrogenica]

5. I agree. We have 2 great candidates here, people.

I like Obama but Hillary is a great candidate also.

[Alexander]

6. Hillary has not learned. She voted yes on Kyl-Lieberman...

which designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a "terrorist group".

That, to me, sends a strong signal that we are more likely to have war with Iran with Hillary Clinton in office.

And I really, really do not want that.

[ArkySue]

12. Well, guess what?

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization.
Also note that since this designation, the Iranians have backed off border attacks/assistance to the insurgents.

[Alexander]

23. Yes, George W. Bush feels the same way you do.

"The Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization."

Wrong. They are a branch of the Iranian military. Just because they are controlled by a government we don't like does not make them terrorists.

Do they:

-Target civilians?
-Kill women and children civilians?
-Attack civilian structures, or places of no military value?
-Hijack civilian vehicles or otherwise deliberately threaten civilian lives?

The answer - if you are informed - is no.

"Also note that since this designation, the Iranians have backed off border attacks/assistance to the insurgents."

There is no proof that they ever were assisting the insurgency, and certainly no proof of what you just said. Surely you can provide evidence if your statements aren't complete fabrications.

[Auntie Bush]

54. If Podella is a terrorists...then I think the IRG is certainly a terrorist organization. No?

[ArkySue]

63. See my reply at # 60

Fund and train Hezbollah and Hamas....lots of civilian deaths there.

[newmajority]

48. So any non-AIPAC approved country can't even have their own military anymore?

without them being branded "terrorists" :wtf:

[ArkySue]

60. The IRG has funded and trained

Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists, those responsible for the Beruit Marine Barracks bombing, the attack on Cobart Towers, to name a couple of items. They were also sending the more powerful road-side bombs into Iraq for use against our troops.

What is your definition of a terrorist organization, pray tell??

[newmajority]

61. The "School of Americas" would certainly fit the description

Pretty much every goddamned terrorist leader in Central and South America was trained there. Probably some Muslims too.

[ArkySue]

62. School of Americas

Yes, they did that under the wonderful Reagan regime, the president your candidate lauds.

But that has nothing to do with Kyl-Lieberman.

[Webster Green]

7. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11!

Lot's of people saw through the bullshit. We were in the streets protesting.

At the time of the IWR vote, the war-chimp's intentions were clear.

[mitchtv]

8. New York especially

It took some stones to say "no" to bush. If Hillary had said no she wouldn't be a senator today, I think. Most Dems, myself included were afraid he would find something or "find" something, and leave them with egg on their faces. It was a big relief when no WMD were found.

[Tom Strong]

9. Sometimes the best perspective is the one 1000s of miles away. Go Canada and go Hill! n/t

[newmajority]

49. Thankfully, Canada isn't thousands of miles away for some of us.

Which might prove to be a good thing, should the wrong person be elected this year :(

[Bonobo]

10. It wasn't JUST that we were in shock. Most on this board knew that Iraq was bullshit.

I think Hillary voted that way because she doesn't want to be tagged as a "Berkeley peace-loving liberal" and has for a long time been cultivating a tougher, centrist look to shore up a political weak spot.

THAT is what angered me about her vote. I think she knew better and was doing it for political reasons. It is hard for me to forgive it since she never really apologized.

Also, I thought she had learned her lesson and then voted the wrong way on the Iran bill as well... Sigh.

[enid602]

20. benefit

To be honest, I'm sure some of her constituents have benefitted from defense contracts and earmarks related to the controversial bills to which she voted 'yes.'

[jasmine621]

24. Most of us may have "thought" Iraq was bullshit. None of us "knew" a damn thing.

In fact, when I first heard about 9/11 my first thought was Saddam but that lasted for only a couple of hours when I learned the folks were mostly Saudis. Then I wasn't sure who was responsible. Only when the news started mentioning al-qaeda did I even think about them. My only reaction soon after 9/11 and the news about al-qaeda was how the hell did we find out so quickly who all these terrorists were. Still puzzles me.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. No the evidence that the administration was lying

was there for anyone who cared to look for it. Certainly there was no proof that Iraq didn't have a WMD - how would we prove that? The fabricated and contradictory statements made by the administration were actually reported on - if you looked - for example in the back pages of the NYT and by the good folks at the McClatchy papers, while Judy Miller was commiting crimes against humanity along with the vast majority of the bullshit media on the front pages and the evening news.

I never once suspected Iraqi involvement. Iraq had no history of international terrorism, Saddam's focus had always been regional not global, nor was it in any position to benefit from such an attack. Just the opposite, any trail leading back to Iraq would be the end of the regime. Of course it didn't actually matter that there was no trail - our rulers simply lied about it and invented one, leading right back to where we started: Bush et al were lying and their lies were obvious to anyone paying attention.

[rwheeler31]

11. Americans do not support primitive war.

[MichiganVote]

15. Oh we most certainly have, right back to the war we waged on native americans.

[TexasObserver]

16. Virtually everyone posting here opposed the War Resolution

So did half the Democratic US Senators.

This line was drawn in the sand five years ago, and those of us who argued nonstop for 6 months in the lead up to the IWR vote against conflating the War on Terror into a War on Iraq are still pissed about it. We've been steadfast and right for five years. We know who has tried to get right of those who voted for it, and we know those who haven't. Hillary hasn't. It's never her fault, never her responsibility, never her mistake, never just something she did for political ambition. I'm sick of hearing her lie about it every time she addresses the topic.

Thanks for the Canadian viewpoint, eh? Tell our US dollars we said HELLO!!

[MichiganVote]

18. One wonders how Barak Obama could not know how he would vote....

[Alexander]

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

Pretty clear to me.

[MichiganVote]

30. Oh please, he also said he didn;t know how he would vote...

think McCain won't make hay over that one...give me a break...McCain will have a field day with that one.

[Alexander]

70. If you can read, you'd know he then said "From my vantage point, the case was not made."

Not even Hillary Clinton herself disputes that Obama's always been anti-war.

Now the question is, can you read?

[dailykoff]

17. Hilly was NOT thrown into a state of shock by 911

and in fact, she made a big photo-op deal about it. A few days afterward she and fellow NY senator Schumer marched into the oval office with their hands stuck out, camera's a-whirring, and rattled the tin cup for a few billion in graft for "rebuilding" (chortle) and other pork.

Why was she so unflustered? Well I'll let you figure that one out on your own time.

[Auntie Bush]

55. Crappy post if I ever saw one.

You don't think maybe Hillary wanted some money to rebuild after 9/11?

[dailykoff]

58. Hilly has been riding that gravy train for six years.

Time to stop fooling ourselves about who the engineer really is.

[smalll]

19. Thank you for the reality check. Take a rec!

As many of the Obamans were still being driven to the school bus stop by their Moms in SUVs "way back" in the early 2000s, I'm not surprised that they lack a proper perspective.

The IWR vote was in late 2002. About one short year after the recovery and clean-up operation was over downtown at the remains of the World Trade Center. Senator Schumer of NY also voted the way Hillary did on the IWR.

Her own husband had had his issues with Saddam as well. There were even a few bombing runs against Saddam's regime late in Bill's Presidency. Hillary hadn't even been a senator for two full years when the IWR came up for a vote. People in the reality-based community can understand Hillary's stance at the time, even if they can't endorse it.

Obama supporters, well, they need to "move on."

[UndergroundEcoHound]

41. What?

This is the third post in five minutes I've written to address condescension spewed by HRC supporters. Stop with the alienation of younger voters...it's getting pretty redundant and old. I remember when we were the big tent party, but HRC supporters get upset when some of those entering don't fall in line.

[mzmolly]

21. Thanks Glarius.

:toast: to you!

[Warren Stupidity]

27. I'd give her a pass in October of 2001.

For example, I am not taking anyone to task for authorizing the war against Afghanistan. But the IWR was a year later, and tons of us common idiots out here in the fields knew the whole thing was a bunch of total bullshit. It was a vote of political expedience and cowardice. Like her husband, who executed a retarded person to demonstrate how hard on crime he was, her ambition knows no bounds.

On the other hand, if she wins the nomination, I will have nothing but good things to say about her until after the election.

[glarius]

28. No offence but it seems to me that your last sentence says that you are

being rather expedient yourself. :hi:

[Warren Stupidity]

33. Intentional irony.

We all make compromises. I will vote for Clinton if she is the nominee despite her vote on the IWR.

[Cha]

31. hmmm...I would have thought

you would have gotten it, glarius..why some of us think hilary was nothing but calculating for her IWR vote and there's been no evidence to the contrary all these 5 years. Au contraire, she's sent the message out that she's tough as nails with no vision or leadership qualities. And, there's friggin blood on her hands. At least John Edwards and John Kerry apologized and have done great works since then..not miss toughy.

[glarius]

35. I don't know the ins and outs of your politics but I'm wondering if

perhaps Hillary and some of those Dems who voted like she did....did so because they thought if they didn't, a Republican would replace them in their next election. This would have been even worse, wouldn't it? I'm just wondering.

[BootinUp]

37. That was one factor, undeniably so.

Also, assuming the inspections were restarted, there was a chance that the case for war would be discredited, this depended on maintaining the inspections long enough of course. As we saw, Bush ended them while they were making real progress.

[Cha]

39. Heck NO! hilary had presidential stars

in her eyes and she thought the bombing would go lickity spilt with flowers and shyte and they'd all be heroes..oooops! People died..people were maimed for life..Blood everywhere and it sickens me. I can't even imagine losing my son to the greed of politicians..I don't know how they hold back their grief and anger.

[glarius]

42. You may be right about her, I don't know, but I certainly agree with you

about the horror of the war. Besides all the young American servicemen and women who were needlessly killed and maimed there were the many thousands of innocent Iraqis who died and were injured also. I don't know how Bush and his buddies can sleep at night with all this blood on their hands.

[Cha]

47. Because they have no

conscience and power is their god.

[Evergreen Emerald]

34. The voice of reason bobbing to the top ...

in the sea of idiocy here on DU. You are absolutely correct.

There is very little difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues. I support Clinton, and think she would make a wonderful President.

To continue this pretend difference between the two, when Obama could not have voted on IWR, and when he finally could make a difference, VOTED FOR THE WAR EVERY TIME.

[ingac70]

36. Hillary knew this war was bullshit when she voted for it...

The creeps in the Bush Administration had asked her husband to attack Iraq in '98.

She can't claim she didn't know where this was going.


http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

[JVS]

38. Don't conflate Afghanistan or 9/11 with Iraq.

They are separate issues.

[Martin Eden]

44. "pointless dwelling on the past and casting blame"

glarius,

I appreciate that you are reaching out with a friendly perspective here, but with all due respect I believe it is essential to examine a candidate's record when trying to determine who will be the best president. Perhaps the most important qualification is sound judgement on vital issues like the IWR vote in October 2002.

Hillary Clinton makes a strong case that a credible threat of force was necessary to achieve the desired result of getting the inspectors back into Iraq to resolve the WMD issue. President Bush most definitely acted in bad faith by invading before the inspectors were allowed to finish their work. However, her stated reasons for voting against amendments requiring Bush to return to Congress for further authorization before invading are unconvincing. Furthermore, it was plainly obvious that once given the authority Bush would invade no matter what. If you paid attention to his rhetoric at that time and were aware of the PNAC neocon agenda, you knew a yes vote in October 2002 was a vote for the invasion of Iraq.

We desperately needed the Democratic leadership in Washington to exercise sound judgement and to keep the decision about going to war in the hands of the legislative branch where it is Constitutionally mandated. More than half the Democrats in the House voted against it, as well as 21 Senators. Those who didn't must bear some responsibility for what has transpired these least 5 years.

I quoted your phrase "pointless dwelling on the past and casting blame" because it applies to more than the records of presidential candidates. It goes against the fundamental principle of holding our elected representatives accountable for their actions. This includes the HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS of the administration that exploited the tragedy of 9/11 and told outright lies to implement a predetermined agenda resulting in 4,000 dead American soldiers and a hundred times that many Iraqi civilians. Insisting that THEY be held accountable is not "dwelling on the past" -- it's upholding the rule of law to ensure that these kind of horrors will not be repeated.

I am not putting Hillary Clinton in the same boat as GW Bush. If she is the Democratic nominee I will support her and vote for her. I do not cast aside all her good qualities on the basis of her IWR vote. However, I think I am being reasonable and responsible by taking that vote into consideration when assessing the qualities of judgement I want in a president.

[K8-EEE]

45. I agree with you, nice Canadian person!

I know perfectly normal people who were all 'OMG SADDAM IS GOING TO KILL US!' The whole damn country had PTSD for at least a year,...BushCo knew it and milked it for all it was worth.

[Martin Eden]

76. If Hillary had PTSD over 9/11 ...

... to the extent that it affected her judgement for more than a year, then she doesn't have what it takes to exercise sound judgement as president in times catastrophe and crisis.

[Hoof Hearted]

50. I want our country to get a little closer to the healthcare you enjoy, hence Clinton

gets my support.

Thanks for your post, btw! I would be happy with either, too. I'm hoping for BOTH! :-)

[Auntie Bush]

51. You hit the nail on the head with that explanation. Thanks!

Nice to have some cool heads around here!

[HughMoran]

53. You remember that time accurately enough

I am not one who will be criticizing your analysis - I knew Bush was lying, but I also knew that if he wanted to start a war, Congress was going to give him enough rope to hang himself with. And what did Bush do with that rope? ...he hung himself.

[2hip]

56. *Eighteen months* elapsed from 9/11 to the start of the Iraq invasion.

The "state of shock" elicited by 9/11 had dissipated significantly over time, enough to be rational and clear-headed when the invasion started. If WE knew the invasion was bullshit right from the start, why didn't Clinton? Unless, of course, she's a Hawk at heart and had no moral objection to unnecessary pre-emptive aggression. I have a problem with that.

[OnionPatch]

57. Thanks for the interesting perspective.

It's good to hear an outside opinion.

As for me, I would be extremely happy to have either Hillary or Obama for president rather than a Republican. Neither of them are my dream candidate, but both want to get our troops out of Iraq regardless of how they voted (or would have) on the IWR. I don't believe either will appoint a conservative to the Supreme Court. Things are going to get better than they are now under either of them, that's almost assured. I'm going to vote for Obama on Tuesday, but don't have any desire to fight it out online with Hillary supporters. I'm just waiting to see what happens. :popcorn:

[mrreowwr_kittty]

59. The Dixie Chicks knew that the war was bullshit. So did MILLIONS around the world.

It took five minutes of Internet research to reveal what a sick fraud it was.

Hillary Clinton had a staff who was paid to research this stuff. She also was the First Lady when these same PNAC jokers tried to talk her husband into attacking Iraq. Either she's really thick or they don't communicate that well. I don't believe either scenario so I'm guessing she knew what she was doing with that vote. I will say that I think she believed it would be over quickly, like the first Gulf War.

[glarius]

64. I will ask something now which may be very sensitive.

Do you think that Obama, even if he is selected by the Democratic Party as your candidate, cannot win the election because the southern states of the U.S.A. will never vote for a black person to be president?....I hope I am wrong.

[calimary]

65. Yeah, unfortunately, I think there are still people in this country who

won't vote for a black candidate - or any candidate of color. Fortunately, they're in the minority, but I'll bet they still exist.

Old habits and belief systems die hard.

BTW - thanks for your perspective from outside this crazy country! It's a valid one. Because back in the beginning of this mess, just after 9/11, everyone WAS in shock. And the bastards on the Dark Side took FULL advantage of it, opportunistic infections that they are. They preyed upon our shock and disbelief and fear and manipulated us ALL (or at least tried to). And many of 'em are still at it. And people really were swayed. Those of us who remained skeptical were few and far between. And we were attacked mercilessly, called names, scorned and derided as cowards and traitors and Neville Chamberlains and Saddam-lovers and Osama-lovers and enablers and enemy collaborators. We were flipped off and bullied. I had my car keyed and my tires slashed because some bold soul found my bumper stickers "bush KNEW" and "War is Not the Answer" to be objectionable. It was hard to keep your head on straight with all that going on. It was like standing in the middle of a tornado. It was AWFUL. And EVERYONE was subjected to it. Including our Congresspeople and Senators.

GOD I hope those people pay! I hope we beat the snot out of them in November. I hope we beat them back so far into the distance that they'll need several generations to make up lost ground - or better yet, that they're set back so far they'll NEVER recover.

I hope that "Great Political Realignment" that kkkarl rove predicted so confidently is OURS!!!

[glarius]

68. Reading your post is very encouraging....it proves the American spirit is

alive and well! My thought is that the younger generation in the south is more enlightened and will be the voice of the future....Free of predjudice.
P.S...I can't believe I'm up at this hour. For some reason I can't sleep tonight so I'm spouting off on DU!

[calimary]

80. Well, I'm up again the next morning after getting a little sleep, and I'm

still back to spouting off on DU! It becomes something of an obsession after awhile.

But it's true - we only had each other here, and in a few isolated oases on the internet. EVERYONE ELSE, and I MEAN EVERYONE ELSE was agaisnt us, wholesale for the war and any aggression possible, and many of them were EXTREMELY vocal about it. I will never ever ever forget how it went. And a LOT of our best reps, House and Senate, WERE targeted for intimidation. So was the media, played like a violin for the sake of their precious fucking access to the "in crowd" of the moment. If you didn't play ball, you were lost. Some reporters in smaller markets and newspapers were actually let go. I forget who it was, I THINK here on the West Coast somewhere, who was fired because he had the nerve to wonder in a commentary why bush ran and hid like some frantic bunny rabbit on that day. It happened to be TRUE. bush DID INDEED go flying all over the Sunbelt looking for a place to hide. I will NEVER forget how the anchors at CNN, in the middle of that dreadful day, were saying, out loud into the cameras - "WHERE is the president???" "WHERE is the president?" When we needed the leadership, in a state of panic and presumed seige, we were left leaderless and rudderless as citizens. The media kept the lights burning, but even they were fueled on propaganda.

I remember getting "those" emails full of pro-bush/pro-war dreck back when WE who were searching for information other than whatever pablum was being spoonfed to us by the mainstream media. You know, all the stuff that, if it even did reach the big newspapers like the NYTimes and the Washington Post, could only be found buried on page A23 below the fold. That's the ONLY place any of these big papers put any opposing voices or questioning about the war - in a multi-page writethru. You'd find it at the end of the A section, buried almost into nonexistence. The then Knight-Ridder newspapers - a small chain of papers that did not include a Washington DC daily - (they've since been bought up by McClatchy) were the ONLY papers to get the story completely correct. They were the only "major media" outlets to give a forum to the many scientists, diplomats, inspectors, and other experts who doubted the propaganda line about the WMDs and Saddam being involved with Osama/911. How come they alone did complete and objective reporting? Because that's all they could do. They didn't have White House credentials. They alone did NOT have access to the big players in the White House, State, and Defense Department, or the Joint Chiefs, or the National Security Council. They were forced to look elsewhere for sources, and they turned to all those voices that were trying to get the truth out and weren't being heard, or were actively being frozen out by the major media.

Helen Thomas was shunted to the back of the press room for having the audacity to ask probing questions about this. Helen Thomas! The Dean of the White House Press Corps, who had covered presidents back to JFK and traditionally started (with the opening question) and ended ("thank you, Mr. President") every White House news conference. Shunted to the back of the room! NOT called upon! Not even acknowledged. And what galled me personally as a retired reporter was how NO ONE, repeat - NO ONE in the rest of the White House Press Corps stood up for her. NOT ONE OF THEM. NOT ONE!!! Nobody said peep! They were skeeeeered, too. Utterly disgusting and disgraceful!!! That STILL galls me to no end!!!

There WAS intimidation from the White House. And a few in the media actually did cop to it.

Michael Moore tells a story of being interviewed by Katie Couric, then still with the "Today" show. He was complaining about the media black-out on truth about the war and about bush/cheney. When the interview was over and they broke for commercial, he said they were both taking off their lavaliers when she leaned over to him and confided "you are SO right!" And she proceeded to relate to him, off the record of course, that she herself had been bullied. Evidently somebody in the White House had seen an interview she'd done with somebody else there, and called the NBC brass to complain about her "tone of voice!" Whereupon, she said, she got a memo from "upstairs" telling her in no uncertain terms to COOL IT. Michael Moore said he replied "WHY don't you say something about this!?!?!?!?!?!!?!?!?!? WHY don't you write an op/ed piece about it???? You're Katie Couric! You're one of three people in the whole country who can't be fired! Why don't you SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS!??!!?!?" She responded, ever-courageously, "someday, I will."

Yeah. "Someday." Anybody heard anything from her on that score lately? "Someday" we will.

Keith Olbermann also got a taste of this, but he handled it differently. He was going to have Joseph Wilson on his show (the first time Wilson was scheduled as a guest on "Countdown") to talk about the whole yellow cake in Niger affair and the outing of his wife in retaliation. He went on the air a day or two beforehand (maybe it was just one day before) and held up these pieces of paper. And he said when they'd announced Joseph Wilson was scheduled on "Countdown," he got THESE. And he rustled the papers a little as he held them aloft. And he said "these are messages from the White House." And he proceeded to read one of them - "Understand you're having Joseph Wilson on your show. Please call me." And evidently there was a slew of similar messages to him. He then recalled on camera how he declined to call the White House back, and why, and added the appropriate smirks and "yeah, pal, like when HELL freezes over!" snarks. When Joseph Wilson actually appeared on his show the next day or whenever it was, he again produced those papers and recounted the attempt at manipulation of his interview while Joseph Wilson was sitting there in front of him. And then they shared a chuckle on the air about it, together.

And it wasn't just with that. Reporters were threatened with loss of access. That precious access to all the big players. They were threatened with having their White House credentials yanked. They were threatened with being frozen out of the action - I guess one of the cardinal sins in broadcasting with this bunch. Which, I find all the funnier and more curious since it was precisely those WITHOUT access who actually got the full story.

I said it before here, and I'll repeat it: You just watch. After this bunch of bastards is gone, you're gonna have umpteen thousand mea culpa books and poor me memoirs and other tawdry, pathetic, shameless confessionals and other assorted boo-hoo's about how badly they were all played, used, manipulated, silenced, bullied, intimidated, lied to, and so forth. They'll profess their innocense, what sad and struggling victims they were, how abused they were, how valiantly they TRIED to get to the truth. And it will be 100-percent, tin-plated BULLSHIT, your results may vary, se habla espanol, member FDIC. They ALL piled on. ALL of them. tucker carlson and tweety will breathlessly repeat while looking straight into the cameras how they were "against this war from the beginning." HAH!!! MORE bullshit. Frankly, same thing for Bill Clinton, who publicly supported bush on it at the time. They ALL had various forms of guns held at their heads, figuratively speaking. ALL of them. With VERY few exceptions, they ALL fell for it, and went along, and were accomplices, accessories to the crime, enablers and collaborators and propaganda pushers. EVERY ONE OF THEM with EXTRAORDINARILY FEW exceptions.

WE KNOW THIS WAS TRUE. Because we watched and fumed and ranted about it and vented to each other and bemoaned what was happening. We watched it day after day after day after day. We emailed, we called, we complained, we petitioned, we appealed every which way we could. All for NOTHING. There were no open or sympathetic ears pointed our way. Our efforts were rewarded with a freeze out, if we were lucky. The unlucky ones of us got threatened, bullied, ostracized, fired, called names, demonized, laughed at, smeared, insulted, in short - the works.

When I was just starting to get active about this stuff, I emailed a petition to a bunch of friends and associates asking bush not to go to war. I got one response from a girlfriend who said she was refusing to sign the petition because she thought "we have to support our president." Another reply was a lot more blunt: "WHERE WERE YOU 9/11?????" Yeah. "Where were you 9/11." There was no preposition between the "you" and the "9/11." Didn't he mean "where were you ON 9/11?" I dunno, maybe he was just pissed. And he went on to excoriate me as a Saddam-sympathizer and traitor to America and why didn't I go move to Eye-raq, filthy traitorous commie liberal half-breed that I obviously was. When I replied that I was comforting a panicky mom who'd just the day before taken one of those same flights home from the East Coast, and others in total freak-out mode who had friends working in the Twin Towers, helping to coordinate pick-up of the kids we'd already taken to school that day who had to be sent back home becasue the school decided to close for the day, and helping to organize a den of Cub Scouts to go to local shopping areas selling flag pins to earn money to send to the Red Cross, my "friendly" correspondent was unmoved. I was still a dirty traitor and enemy-sympathizer.

And believe me, anybody who cares to look back over the record can see how the people in office then, both locally and nationally, were being pressured to shut up and get in line. Hillary was just one among MANY. Almost everyone else caved, too, except for Feingold and Kucinich and a few stalwarts who were almost literally roasted alive. It was DAMNED HARD to voice any other opinion than the company line. There were almost literally NO voices trying to offer the other side - hell, trying to offer ANY other side. ANY AT ALL. There wasn't an Air America. There wasn't ANYBODY. As usual, the broadcast lemmings all thought that to succeed, you had to clone rush limbaugh. And you know what kind of one-sided message he pushed nonstop. There was quite literally NO relief. NONE. It was a very very horrible time. It was like a little Joe McCarthy era, complete with witch hunts. It was, as Lillian Hellman once wrote, Scoundrel Time. A VERY dark hour in our history, perhaps the gloomiest of all. I hope I never live to see such a dreadful time again. And I also hope that my kids don't ever see such a dreadful time again. These black-eye periods in our history seem to happen every few decades. I think it could be argued that the last one we had was during the heyday of Joe McCarthy in the 50's with the blacklists and the witch hunts and the red scares (when the word "commie" was the enemy title of the day - just substitute "terr'ists" now and you've basically got the same thing). So maybe around 2050 or 2060 we'll see another round of this kind of shit.

[Martin Eden]

77. Amen to all of that!!!

Those of us who were skeptical and saw through the BS were mercilessly derided and smeared.

Time and events have vindicated us and those who stood against the madness of this "preemptive" war.

May it be the nail in the coffin of kkkarl's grand scheme :grr:

Great post, calimary :yourock:

[puebloknot]

66. Thank you for weighing in with your perspective on our politics.

America does not live in splendid isolation. What happens here affects the whole world, and we need to learn to listen to the opinions of others.

I can't agree with your premise, but I respect your offering it.

I have said many times that *I* knew Bush's saber rattling over 9/11, and trying to tie Saddam Hussein to that event, was simply an excuse to do what he wanted to do in Iraq. And I've never accepted that rubric that said that on 9/11, America was a united country. Yes, there was shock, but many, many of us still had our wits about us sufficiently to smell a rat -- and a big one -- when all the bipartisan harmony began to be talked about. There was strong pressure to pick up the flag and join the crowd in cheering our fearless Mr. Bush as he stood on the rubble of the Trade Towers and played (badly) his role as "Commander in Chief." Sorry, no sale -- for many of us who quietly kept our own counsel and waited.

How hard was it for any person in our Congress to overlook the fact that a rogue Supreme Court *appointed* Bush to the office of the President. With that alone as background, how could our Congress go along with this administration in their many attempts to undercut what America has always claimed to stand for -- no matter that we've been imperfect in our efforts to uphold our own stated principles.

When people counsel moving on, putting the past behind us and moving into a bright new day, I'm reminded of all the American troops who have lost their lives in this phony war, and of the many thousands (respected reports say at least a million) of Iraqis -- civilians, men, women and children -- who have died in this grand American misadventure.

It is best not to forget that most of our congresspersons were "sucked into Bush's war" because they were already compromised by their associations with those who stood to make a *lot* of money in this venture. There was no one without sin to cast the first stone!

[LadyVT]

67. Yes

Thank you for your post. Remember that many of Obama's supporters (he has the votes of most of the early-20s crowd) were 12-14 years old when Bush took office, so, no, they don't know all of this. All they hear is what Obama says about what happened. They don't remember the panic and the rush to war, and the way the media went nearly 100% behind the administration and called any Senator who dared to oppose it unpatriotic. That's what Obama meant when he wrote in 2006 that he doesn't know what he would have done had he been in the Senate.

I love the Canadian perspective. My husband is from Montreal! ;)

[FrenchieCat]

69. We Don't pay our Elected officials to get "thrown into a state of shock"......

And by October of 2002, I had hope that they would have gotten their shit together just a little bit...and not be cowed by that asshole squatting in our White House.

It was political expediency and nothing more. It was unpricinpled, and there is no need to reward that kind of behavior by our politicians. They work for us, not for their own career ambition. If they chose wrong, they must be held accountable. It really is just that simple.

[DUyellow]

73. "In a state of shock", good thing we didn't attack Canada

[glarius]

74. Don't think we aren't aware of that possibility...under certain circumstances!

I do believe though, that due to the decency of the American people in general...such a scenerio is very unlikely!

[DUyellow]

75. I agree.

[ingac70]

79. The white trash that put Bush in office...

wouldn't think twice about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFQs9sVvujE

[krkaufman]

72. My main issue is that Hillary's pro-Iraq vote is a weakness that will be exploited ...

... in the general election. Obama's opposition to going to war gives him a much clearer distinction from the eventual Republican candidate. Your statement is well-reasoned, but reason (as you've likely seen) doesn't have much to do with US politics once the smear machines rev-up.

see: "he voted for the war, before he voted against it"

[BlueManDude]

78. Exactly - the nuances of the vote will not matter during the campaign...

most of us can undersatnd that voting for the IWR does not mean that had Sen Clinton been president she would have invaded Iraq. She wouldn't have. Yet her support of the IWR gives the GOP and everyone else ample opportunity to change the subject from the war itself - to Clinton's "flip-floppery." We went down this road with Kerry. Unbelievable to me that many want to go down that same road again. I was wrong to support Kerry over Dean in 2004. Dean would have run a much better camapaign. The asme goes for Obama this time.

My antipathy to a Clinton nomination is solely about politics. I think she's terrifuc - but she simply can't win the GE and will hurt the party downballot.

[krkaufman]

81. The "downballot" issue is another reason I favor Obama.

He has a better chance of increasing our majorities in the House and Senate.

[krkaufman]

82. A DailyKos blogger sums it up well, in an "interview"

Speaking as a pesky voter, what is your #1 election issue for 2008?

I'm a quasi-single issue voter: Iraq. That's because Iraq permeates every single issue. How can we talk about balancing the budget when we have hundreds of billions funneled into that disaster? How can we talk about health care without talking about the fact that 1 out of every 5 soldiers come home with a traumatic brain injury? How can we debate reducing our dependence on foreign oil when we're spending more on an occupation than on innovation?

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/4/7469/47977/385/448106