If you're supporting Hillary and opposed the war

[sandnsea]

then frankly I don't think you know the meaning of the word principle. Why should any candidate care what you think when you turn around and support them no matter how they vote, just like they always believed you would. You're proving the DLC types right with your vote. They can do anything and then blow a bunch of media propaganda up your ass and you'll fall right in line. This election is the only chance we have to change the direction of the party. It may or may not change with Obama. It definitely WILL NOT change with Hillary.

[Omega3]

1. hindsight is always 20/20, it's easy to critisize when you're not there, it's even easier to say

"I'm against the war" before you get to the senate and then vote for it at every opportunity when you finally get there.

PS it's hypocritical to surround yourself with ppl (Kerry<KENNedy, Dodd) who voted for the war and then attack someone with the same vote as those you surround yourself with.

PSS it's even more hypocritical to go and campaign for Joe Lieberman, the "biggest (at the time) Dem. supporter of the Bush war effort" if you are apparently so against the war.


HYPOCRITICAL

[sandnsea]

5. Kennedy did not vote for the IWR

Kerry and Dodd have admitted their mistake and fervently opposed the invasion while Hillary was telling Code Pink there was nothing she could do about the imminent invasion.

People who opposed the war and called everybody stupid and traitors and every other filthy name, are worse than hypocrites if they support Hillary now. She didn't just make a vote, she supported Bush at every turn, until the war became politically unpopular.

[Omega3]

8. ok, i retract Kennedy, Hillary has too said she shouldn't have voted for it, did you miss that? now

respond to the rest of my post.

[sandnsea]

11. A week ago? Pssht

Political opportunist, from the vote to her changing her opinion every time the polls change.

There is no rest of your post that matters.

[Evergreen Emerald]

95. where have you guys been? She has been consistent since the beginning of this

The double standard on DU is so ugly.

[ClassWarrior]

98. Links?

NGU.

[Evergreen Emerald]

102. what?

Links to what? All of the consistent statments Clinton has said about the IWR vote?

Are you kidding me? Where the hell have you been? Seriously, if you have not heard them, I wonder how you can make an informed decision?

[ClassWarrior]

121. I give you an opportunity to convince me, you belittle me.

Give me links to, say, three consistent statements that she made about this prior to the last debate.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

123. I don't believe they exist, and I don't think you ever bothered to look.

I believe you just accepted this meme as fact without confirming it. And given the fact you haven't answered, all I can assume is that you're ashamed to admit it.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

74. Wow, near the end of a failing campaign?? She MUST be sincere!!

She denied that it was a mistake for five years. She must have been waiting for this moment to reveal her "real" position! Brilliant!!

NGU.

[Barack_America]

101. I won't be satisfied until she says that it was a "mistake" and that she is "sorry"

I expect that from everyone who voted for the war, particularly if they want my vote.

[cali]

56. LOL! You thought Kennedy voted for the war?

He didn't and Leahy and Feingold and many other Obama endorsers in the House and Senate didn't either.

[TriMetFan]

126. You are so right except

the Kennedy thing. Now Kennedy is just the guy that Hillary and Bill had to save against Mit Rodmey, when Mit went after Ted's Senate seat. And how does Ted pay back Hillary and Bill by stabbing them in the back. hmmm. what a great guy Mr. Kennedy has turned out to be.

[BuyingThyme]

133. Hindsight is never 20/20. Why do people always say that?

[Tarc]

2. Is this a coordinated O-Bot effort tonight?

First all the cultists rustle enough recommends to get cali's piece of tripe of a thread onto the main page about this subject., Now one of the dutiful foot soldiers comes along with yet another.

Those who voted for the IWR were deceived by the Bush administration's lies. And please, spare us the sanctimonious "but but but I KNEW ALL ALONG!" bullshit...comparing the job Senators do to the armchair quarterbacking of computer nerd netroots is the epitome of apples and oranges.

The Iraq war's responsibility is on Bush's hands, and his alone.

[Omega3]

10. why yes it is, they even had a thread titled about taking over GD-P

[ClassWarrior]

75. Link?

NGU.

[Hav]

94. I suppose it's this one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4839478


I thought it was a nice caricature of the "anything goes" crowd who use whatever they can to discredit the other candidate even if they know that they use questionable sources.

[ClassWarrior]

127. Exactly. It was sarcasm.

NGU.

[LadyVT]

3. At least she doesn't want to move troops out of Iraq in order to

militarily and unilaterally strike Pakistan.

Obama gave his "anti-war" SPEECH at an anti-war RALLY in the most liberal district in the country. Hardly a comparison with voting in the Senate. The man would've voted "present." Give me a break. Wake up.

[Metric System]

4. Thank you for questioning my principles. Can you FEEL the unity?

[sandnsea]

6. I'm not running the country

I'm just trying to figure out why DUers don't care about how we got into the war anymore.

[emilyg]

15. and all that love and hope.

:sarcasm:

[AGirl]

7. I have a bigger problem with hypocrites.

[BlackVelvet04]

9. what's unprincipled is a man who doesn't have the guts to

vote but hides behind the excuse of "it's how things are done in Illinois"....I thought he was not going to do things the way they are done but was going to change. I have no stomach for people who hide behind No Votes and Present votes. obama isn't a change from anything....he's a politician through and through. He admitted he didn't know how he would have voted on the IWR and then turned around and said he didn't mean that he just didn't want to embarrass Kerry...what a little people pleaser he is.

You go ahead and think what you like but YOU are falling for a sham.

[Chisox08]

71. A present vote in Illinios is a let's negotiate vote

It means that there is improvements that can be made before I support this bill completly.

[BenDavid]

12. listen and listen good....I do not give a damn whether obama

was against the war or not. He, just like I had a 50 50 chance of being right and we were. I too opposed the war, but you obamabots fail to understand the damn mission was changed after the invasion to what now, 14 or 15 mission changes? The surge is the lastest change and it seems to be holding and now if we can get the iraqi government to fulfil their part of the damn deal, then we can be our asses out of there....

But, whether it is obama, (i was against the war before I voted to fund its continuation) and hopefully HRC, both will be faced with the cards they are dealt....This is real damn time and I doubt obama realizes it and when he tries to be cute by half with a comeback to get a laugh against HRC, he insults the brave men and women that are in iraq.

Obama in doing this is like bush in that dinner where he had a video of him looking in the white house for the wmd's.....

[Rageneau]

13. I had no problem voting for Kerry, did you?

Did you not vote for Kerry in 2004?

If you were over 18 in 2004 and did not vote for Kerry, you are no Democrat. Your opinion is therefore of no value to REAL Democrats.

OTOH, if you DID vote for Kerry, who voted for the IWR, then you're just a big sexist hypocrite if you won't support Hillary when she voted exactly the same way.

The only way you can be both a real Democrat and not a hypocrite, is if you were too young to vote in 2004.

Which would explain your naivity.

[sandnsea]

14. Jan 2003 "Mr President Do Not Rush To War"

Kerry opposed the invasion at the time. Hillary told Code Pink there was nothing else she could do. Hillary continued to triangulate for years, saying we had to "stay the course" in Nov 2003 when Kerry was proposing a plan to get out. Completely different.

And isn't it funny that people who hated Kerry then are head over heels for Hillary now. Makes no sense. Where are their principles?

[polticalpout]

16. John Kerry said Monday (Aug 2004)he wouldn't have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq

And I know Hillary would have handled things very differently than Bush did as well. Keep throwing useless stones...

.........
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK, Arizona (CNN) -- Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry said Monday he would not have changed his vote to authorize the war against Iraq, but said he would have handled things "very differently" from President Bush.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/09/kerry.iraq/

[sandnsea]

19. With Hillary saying "stay the course"

while he was proposing a plan to start withdrawing troops in 2005. He has also been the leader on benchmarks and timelines to get us out, with no help from her. She did not change her view until she started running for office.

[polticalpout]

26. On July 27, 2004, "Obama tells Chicago Tribune that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq to stabilize

Stop the stone throwing....

2) On July 27, 2004, "Obama tells Chicago Tribune that U.S. forces should remain in Iraq to stabilize the war-torn country. Says "there is not much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage," but is critical of Bush for bungling the occupation. Remains opposed to the original decision to invade. In keynote speech to Democratic convention, Obama avoids criticism of the war, saying "there are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported the war in Iraq."

3) "Once the U.S. went into Iraq, Obama's position became much more nuanced. While he still opposed the war, he was not in favor of an early pullout. In 2004, he even talked about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country as a prelude to an eventual withdrawal."

4) On June 21, 2006, "Obama calls for a "blueprint for an expeditious yet responsible exit from Iraq," but opposes a "date certain for the total withdrawal of U.S. troops" which contradicts his position right now of wanting a withdrawal date within 16 months of taking office if he is elected:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14640

[sandnsea]

28. Those distortions have been answered

"Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, '4, '5, '6, and '7. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly. And that's what I did through 2004, '5, and '6, try to see, can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we're minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq? Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq? And that's what I have done. Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge. And at that stage, I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening potentially a situation there. And since that time, I've been absolutely clear in terms of the approach I would take. I would end this war and I would have our troops out within 16 months."

Saying he wants to get out responsibly is completely different than saying we need to "stay the course" in order to win in Iraq, which is what Hillary said for several years.

[polticalpout]

36. I think it's a very complicated situation...

I understand Obama had the judgement or foresight to be against the Iraq war back in 2002 and Hillary didn't.

I also know both Obama and Hillary have voted for four war appropriations, costing more $300 billion since 2005. He also voted no to Kerrys proposal to remove most combat troops from Iraq by July 2007, warning that an "arbitrary deadline" could "compound" the Bush administration's mistake. And last week, he voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution that stated the Senate would not cut off funding for troops in Iraq. -1

And he voted for a republican resolution stating the Senate would not cutoff troop funding.

So while he may have wanted to change course he still supported the ongoing course
as the votes I refer to above show.

-1
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_shows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/

[sandnsea]

38. He was also against the Perle/Wolfowitz ideology

which Hillary has also did not take a stand against. It is more than votes. It is the "mindset" that goes into the votes. If people who opposed the war, and thought it would be so great to have someone who spoke at a war protest to run for President, turn around and support the war supporter, then they've got nothing to bitch about when they aren't listened to in the future. That's the bottom line.

[polticalpout]

43. fair enough, point made. /nm

nm

[dsc]

17. Weren't you a huge Kerry supporter in 2004?

and if so, wouldn't that make you a big ass hypocrite?

[sandnsea]

20. Jan 2003 "Mr President Do Not Rush To War"

As I said then and now. He opposed the actual invasion, Bill and Hillary Clinton gave Bush a pass at every turn.

[dsc]

21. that is total bullshit and you damn well know it

He voted, in the precise same way as Hillary, and it should be noted that Hillary at the time said "don't rush to war" as well. Further, Kerry said in 2004, several times, that he didn't regret his vote at all. For you, one of the biggest "Dean didn't have to vote so his opposition didn't count" people to now say the exact and precise opposite is total hypocrisy.

[sandnsea]

24. Where's her big speech?

I see now, and saw then, Kerry's opposition to the actual invasion. I saw then, Bill Clinton giving Bush a pass on the yellowcake and Hillary's unwillingness to put herself on the line to truly speak out against the invasion.

In Oct 2002, Dean was saying he might vote for Biden-Lugar, he was saying give Saddam 60 days, he was running a completely different line than Obama did. Dean never challenged the Perle/Wolfowitz ideology that was being shoved down our throats.

They each had different views of this war, but Hillary was one of the biggest cheerleaders.

[dsc]

25. Her speech preceding the vote

where she said in clear terms that it wasn't a vote to invade. Oh and here is you being a total, complete hypocrite.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2011511#2015954

Post 94 where you call the vote you now say is a vote for war a very different thing in defense of Kerry.

[sandnsea]

27. Not the vote, the invasion

Where was she then? She was telling Code Pink there was nothing she could do, Saddam needed to disarm.

My position is exactly the same on the vote as it has always been. The relevant thing is what people did AFTER the vote. The relevant thing is the thinking people applied to the situation. Obama got it completely right and had the courage of his convictions at the time. Even John Kerry can admit that. Why doesn't it matter to any of the principled anti-war people?

[dsc]

29. Maybe because Clinton and Obama have voted the exact, same, precise

way since he has been in the Senate. There isn't a single, solitary, vote taken about the Iraq War in which they are different, not a single solitary one. The only votes that are ever brought up are one he couldn't do since he wasn't a Senator and one that he didn't even bother to show up for (and that was about Iran in any case).

[sandnsea]

31. So because he supports a more cautious withdrawal

Hillary's support of the invasion, support of staying the course, support of bullying Iran, opposition to a much more diplomatic foreign policy, none of that matters. It all mattered when you supported Dean, but none of it matters now. Is that it?

[dsc]

55. I know that for a lot of supporters of Dean this isn't true

but I actually favored both the vote and the war, at the time I felt a short war was preferrable to the sanctions which targetted Iraq's most vulnerable (and yes I was bigtime wrong). My support of Dean was predicated on his record as governor and the fact he was a vocal supporter of gay rights who had produced results in that area. Here is the endorsement of him I wrote for DU. You won't find the war mentioned.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/04/01/19_dean.html

edit corrected link

[bettyellen]

106. that's the most important thing, the fact that he's exploiting differences that do not exist its BS

his supporters know it. they are catapulting as much as the next guy, no doubt.

[ClassWarrior]

84. And I'll be a huge Clinton supporter in 2008 if she gets the nomination.

At least she's better than McBush and Huckleberry.

NGU.

[gabeana]

18. Before the war I was reading international news

From that I knew there were no weapons, I was also reading counterpunch.org, go to the archives great stories on the lead up to the war, also look at this youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYATbsu2cP8, code pink I don't they are sexist. I know its been posted before but it deserves another round, I can't get the link just type in Hillary and code pink it pops right up

[joshcryer]

22. Politics isn't principled.

Don't be naive.

[Skip Intro]

23. If you're going to slam Hillary for the vote, you have to slam Kerry, standing side by side with O.

[jsamuel]

30. notice that you are not lashing out at Clinton or her vote, but the people who support her

[sandnsea]

32. Yes I am

They make no sense to me.

:shrug:

[uncertainty1999]

33. and Obama voted for Congress to intervene in the Schiavo case...

yeah, yeah she was one woman and all.... but that has precedent for 300 million of us. Talk about principle!!! Pfft.

[sandnsea]

40. There was no vote n/t

[Political Heretic]

34. Easy there friend - I was an edwards supporter and I oppsed the war.

I knew his vote - hell his co-sponsorship, how embarrassing is that - was a horrible, horrible mistake. And I didn't support Edwards without any doubts. But I did it ultimately for very principled reasons, and I believed I was doing the right thing.

I give Hillary supporters the benefit of the doubt, but for me I don't defend her vote in part because I've never been satisfied with her answers when questioned on it.

[Skoods]

35. This election is about more than just the war...

It's about who I feel can help our country (and myself) more. That's why I support Hillary Clinton. The war is maybe 4th on my list of priorities right now. Behind health care, education, and poverty.

[sandnsea]

39. You didn't oppose the war in 2002? n/t

[Skoods]

125. I did...

But I don't believe Obama did.

[dailykoff]

47. Yes, it's also about the next war, in Iran

and the next one, in Syria, and the next one, in Libya. And by then I'm sure Halliburton or Exxon-Mobile would need Hillary's attention in Venezuela.

[Major Hogwash]

65. "I'm already against the next war, too!" - a bumper sticker I saw this week!

In Boise, Idaho!!

We're fed up to here with the fuckin' war!

What's wrong with these other people?

[dailykoff]

81. Oh that's good.

Gotta get one of those! :thumbsup:

[DemBones DemBones]

37. If you're supporting Obama and opposed the war

then frankly I don't think you know the meaning of the word principle. And I'm sure Obama doesn't know the meaning of the word principle.

A guy who wasn't in the Senate to vote can't claim he voted against the war, and he's lying when he says he always opposed the war.

In July 2004, while running for the U.S. Senate, Obama told the Chicago newspaper that his position on the war was much like George W. Bush's. He has said during this campaign that he wants to add 100,000 troops to the military. Do you think there will be 100,000 more suckers who'll enlist or will we be feeling a draft?

In 2002, while in the Illinois Senate, Obama made an anti-war speech at a rally. Big whoop. One speech.

Obama morphed into being pro-war in 2004 when the war was being supported by a lot of voters and he wanted to get elected. He'll say whatever works for him at the time.

Obama has voted for every single bill to fund the war and he voted to extend the PATRIOT Act, among other bad votes.

Clinton is just a bit better -- I'm not exactly a fan of hers -- but could beat McCain.

But a lot of Dems seem determined to nominate another candidate doomed to lose, Barack Obama. Get the lifeboats ready before the S.S. Obama sinks in November.

A lot of Democrats are not going to vote for Obama if he's the nominee, some are even saying they might vote for McCain.

[sandnsea]

44. I answered that above

in the "distortions" post.

Hillary has said she is going to outlaw companies like Blackwater, but doesn't tell you where she's going to get troops to replace them. What do you call that? All Democrats supported increasing the military and it probably has been done. There were counter-terrorist fields that weren't fully manned.

Clinton will not end the war. Her remarks to Code Pink just days before the invasion are proof of that. She also will not beat McCain. She can't. Too much of the country already hate her, and now at least a quarter of the Dem Party hate her. You can't win when only 30% of the country is willing to vote for you. I haven't heard any Democrats say they won't vote for Obama, not one.

[gulliver]

41. The fish thinks the plastic worm is a worm.

Same for IWR and the war. Ultimately, everything is just what you think it is, because that is what you want.

But if the IWR and war are two separate things for you, you are "conscious" and have a chance of improving the world. The rest of the people are just reflex mechanisms who fill a certain part of the bell curve with predictable misunderstandings and oversimplification: the baited, the catch.

[DemBones DemBones]

54. Very well said. There are a lot of reflex mechanisms about,

more's the pity.

[TheDeathadder]

42. how is saying one thing and then voting another

principle or change? Obama said he was against the war, but since he's been a Senator he voted the same way Clinton did in relation to the war.

Sounds like old style politics to me.

But then again I'm not judging your principles in who you support or how you vote, so why are you attacking my principles because I'm against the war but support Clinton?

It's your opinion and only your opinion and not fact that change will not come with Clinton.

Support your candidate and I'll support mine, now that's a principle I like to live by.

Also be careful coming down from your high horse, you might hurt yourself.

[sandnsea]

45. Don't complain about being ignored anymore

Once you vote for Clinton, you're voting for the Democrats who have been ignoring the activists and the protesters for years.

[TheDeathadder]

48. Please

I used to work for work Kucinich in 2004 when John Kerry's people used to show up at our early in the primary events and told us activists and the protesters to stop complaining about the war and to get in line. Now once again I'm going through another candidate telling me to stop my cause and to get in line.

And I know what my vote stands for and only I know what my vote stands for, and the only person I see complaining is you about my vote. but don't anyone dare say a thing about Obama or dare to say they think all the hoop-la is a bunch of hot air.

I'm 35 years old and I've been voting since I was 18. I have been an activist and a protester. I have worked in and out of the system. You my friend are screaming from a high horse and it may very well turn out that your vote is very wrong.

[sandnsea]

49. Who has been leading the fight to end the war?

John Kerry. We were right in 2004 and we're right now. Most Kerry people are for Obama.

[TheDeathadder]

51. All I'm saying is...

when I worked for Kucinich Kerry people and state officials used to show up at events and tell people to stop harping on the war. They also would tell people stop the events and to start working for Kerry. They would come in with lawyers and suits and try to boss town hall rallies around and would try to boss activists and protesters around. Nobody should be looking down on anybody, so don't go telling people who support Clinton but oppose the war they have no principles.

Cool?

[sandnsea]

52. That's what I think though

I don't understand how a war protester can support Clinton. I just don't. How can you just forget Bill saying we should give Bush the benefit of the doubt on the yellowcake? How can you forget Edwards saying it was the Clintons who told him the WMD intelligence was true? How can you forget that it was the Clintons' DLC strategy to vote for the IWR before the election? How can you just dismiss all of that, and oppose the guy who made the right call at the time? How am I supposed to think the war ever really mattered to you?

[TheDeathadder]

134. that's just it

You don't understand how a war protester can support Clinton. That doesn't mean you guys get to tell the war protester that they have no principles. There's zero unity in that. I'm sure you had enough debates on GDP where a Clinton support takes all your points and gives counterpoints that also are based on facts. That just also leads us to tell you the flaws in Obama which in turn totally piss you, specially when we say he said one thing before he was a senator and voted exactly the same as Clinton since he's been a Senator.

Finally you can tell people who protest the war but support Clinton that stopping the war never mattered to us. That's just rude. This world is not black and white. The Obama people do not have history on their side, nor are your words concrete and fact, they are your opinions. You can say I disagree with you and I'm totally cool with that, but to say the war does not matter to us and that we have no principles is insulting and rude, and you would be pulling your hair out screaming if a Clinton supporter said your reasons for supporting Obama and opposing the war lacked principles or what some people rudely say to Obama people - reality.

I have spent years now of time and effort, as well money to oppose the war and when someone comes along and says I have no principles for supporting one candidate is insulting and makes it very hard for me to support the other candidate even though I know how important it is for a Democrat to win the white house.

We need to stop insulting each side of both Clinton and Obama, we need to grow and let the primary be a primary. This wave of insults will never makes us united.

I'm done being insulted and I'm sorry you have no respect for my time as a war protester and you think I have no principles, but the war will never end with cold rhetoric.

Everyone is saying the Clintons have divided this party, well congratulations, now Obama is doing the same. This is the same reason why I stopped coming here in 2004.

[dailykoff]

46. Hillary re. Iran, December 07: "all options must remain on the table. "

Hillary has been beating the war drums continuously since 911. Not only did she vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment in September, essentially giving Buschco a green light to nuke Tehran, she made her intentions clear in a "Foreign Affairs" article which includes these paragraphs:

"Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

"As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table."

link: http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20071101faessay86601-p40/hillary-rodham-clinton/security-and-opportunity-for-the-twenty-first-century.html

[sandnsea]

50. It's the language and mindset she uses

Obama says all options have to remain on the table too, but he doesn't use it as a threat. He says that all the Iraq occupation did was to give countries like Iran the excuse to say we were being beligerent. Take that excuse away by going ahead and talking and demonstrating true leadership.

[dailykoff]

53. There's also the Kyl-Lieberman-Coleman amendment

that Hillary voted for and Obama did not, which is just as as disastrous in its recommendations as the IWR.

[dsc]

58. Obama didn't vote at all

This amendment that is so important now, shows Clinton to be a blood thirsty warmonger, wasn't important enough for Obama to either say a word or vote one way or the other on then.

[dailykoff]

61. Which had the practical effect of voting no. (n/t)

[dsc]

62. nice try

but no cigar. You don't get credit for refusing to come to Washington, not saying a damn word in opposition to something, and then acting like the something was evil incarnate when it benefits you to do so.

[dailykoff]

67. It passed with 76 votes. Obama's was not one of them, Clinton's was.

Whether you give him credit or not, he effectively voted no.

link to Senate vote: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349

[dsc]

68. He said 0 words, not a single, solitary word

about this supposedly evil bill. Then, when it would do him some good at a debate, he called it evil. It doesn't work that way.

[dailykoff]

70. Voting works that way.

Maybe if Hillary hadn't demagogued on Iran she wouldn't be in the pickle she's in.

[dsc]

73. she took a position

your candidate was a coward. That is the difference here.

[dailykoff]

78. She took the wrong position for the wrong reasons

and now she's losing to a rookie. That's democracy.

[dsc]

86. taking the wrong position is way better than taking none

lets be blunt you would certainly being making the exact opposite argument if your candidate had voted for this and Clinton hadn't voted at all.

[dailykoff]

88. Obama has been against the war since before it started.

Clinton has been riding the terra gravy train since '93, so I strongly disagree with your premise.

[dsc]

90. Obama and Clinton have voted the same, exact precise way

ever since Obama has been in the Senate. The one and only difference is a case where Obama didn't even vote at all. A profile in courage he ain't.

[dailykoff]

91. Except when they didn't. Obama took the road less traveled

and that, as the poet said, has made all the difference.

[dsc]

108. He didn't take any road at all

that is my problem. If he had actually voted, or failing that at least went on record BEFORE THE VOTE, as to what his position was, then he would deserve some credit. He didn't do either.

[dailykoff]

110. Hillary voted for IWR, Kyl-Lieberman, and cluster bombs

used on civilian populations, and Obama didn't. That's three strikes and she's out, even leaving aside her red-meat rhetoric and promises.

[dsc]

111. and he didn't vote on at least the first two at all

and I will look up the third but I suspect he didn't vote on it either.

[dailykoff]

113. Link to cluster bomb amendment roll call

showing Obama YEA, Hillary NAY:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00232

[dsc]

114. He is one for three

he finally voted bully for him.

[dailykoff]

115. And Hillary is out.

And the sooner the better.

[dsc]

117. I respect your right, no matter how wrong I think you are, to decide this way

I would like the same respect. I wouldn't like being called a phony gay, racist, deluded and the like.

[apocalypsehow]

116. So you think Senator Obama is a "coward." All class, as usual, but let me ask you a straightforward

question: when Senator Obama is the Democratic nominee, will you 1. vote for him, 2. vote for McCain, 3. stay home/not vote?

[dsc]

119. I have repeatedly said I would vote for him

even though I have been told repeatedly by Obama supporters not to bother. I won't give money or time though barring his doing something about his repeated misteps in regards to gays. I will likely work instead for the Senate race in my own state. On edit, coward might be a bit strong but I am sick to death of hearing about Hillary's evil votes from supporters of a man who refuses to vote on so many issues.

[apocalypsehow]

120. Good, I'm glad to hear it. I appreciate the straight forward answer.

n/t.

[apocalypsehow]

118. Hillary's IWR apologists and their pitiful dodges on this issue are indeed laughable.

n/t.

[bettyellen]

122. and how does "i don't know how i would have voted" compare? seriously? not better at all.

up there with voting present.
not a thing to be bragging about.

[BooScout]

57. 74 % of America supported the war in Iraq when it started....

Not everyone is a one issue voter.

[Major Hogwash]

64. That's McCain's argument.

Geez Louise!

[bettyellen]

109. but that's also why it's bullshit to say Obama would have voted otherwise- nothing he has

done is that "audacious".. so the specualtion that he would have voted against it is nonsense. Even Obama doesn;t claim it himself.

[bigtree]

59. you are nobody to me

. . . to tell me what principle I have or don't have.

Posting self-important crap like this is as good an indication as any that you don't even know yourself, much less have any ability to judge anyone else.

and BTW, Fuck off.

[Solon]

60. Heh, I feel the same way about Obama supporters who claim to support Gay rights. n/t

[Major Hogwash]

63. How does McCain support gay rights?

That's an end run I don't understand.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

66. Here's A Clue For Ya: Principle Does NOT Mean Saying Completely Ignorant Narrow Minded Declarations

Though such things can definitely be great catalysts for laughter!

[Major Hogwash]

69. Do you think Hillary will be laughing on Wednesday?

Or do you think she will be crying?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

72. I Think She'll Be A Strong Woman, Experienced Leader And Great Dem Senator, Like Always.

But thanks for responding with your sad attempt at childish taunts. :hi:

[Major Hogwash]

77. I'm sorry, but that's not a taunt. I think she will be crying. As for childish crap, I think you

only need to look within yourself to see why that was horseshit.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

82. It Was A Sad Attempt At A Childish Taunt. And You're Right; You Are Sorry.

Your reply had nothing to do with my post, and was only done to try and taunt and do some face rubbing. Totally childish in concept, but also a failure.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

87. Get A Grip.

[frogcycle]

76. your avatar says it all

just stfu

it had been said time and time again. nobody is budging on this particular topic.

find something you can actually make points with. this one is burnt out.

[Major Hogwash]

80. You don't want to talk about the Iraq War that Hillary voted for?

So, you say stfu. Won't work. We're not going to shut up.

[frogcycle]

136. I'm series

that particular point has been made, emphatically. Those who will agree with it already do. The others never will. If you really want to accomplish something, then find something else to attack her over, where you might actually get someone's attention and have some influence. Repeating the same thing over and over and over and over is just pointless. It may be satisfying to write, but it won't sway anybody.

[Major Hogwash]

138. Is the war over yet? Hillary has taken at least 6 different positions on the Iraq War.

So, I'm going to repeat it until it sinks in.

[frogcycle]

139. or hold your breath til you turn blue

[UALRBSofL]

79. Frankly anyone that states you shouldn't vote for Hillary because of her IWR vote

is a hypocrite. I would bet everyone on GD-P voted for Kerry in 04. Had this been an issue in 04 then Dean would have been the candidate of choice. So, when you pull that lever to vote for either Obama or Hillary remember your 04 vote for Kerry when you could have had Dean as your candidate.

[Major Hogwash]

83. Kerry apologized, Hillary didn't. Big difference between 2004 and 2008.

Hillary still has not learned from her mistakes.

Not even after 4 more years of war.

[UALRBSofL]

92. Major Hogwash, in 04 while running in the GE

Kerry never apologized for his vote. What he said in 04 was he would not have changed his vote to authorize war in Iraq but that he would do things different then Bush.

[Major Hogwash]

99. Kerry apologized for his vote on the IWR in 2006 - Hillary never did! Period.

Facts keep getting in the way of your argument.

[UALRBSofL]

104. MajorHogwash He should have apologized before running in the GE

And we still saw the general population vote for Kerry in the primary's even though he didn't apologize. I believe 2006 was 2 years too late for him after the fact of running for president.

[Major Hogwash]

105. Hillary NEVER apologized ever! Not in 2005! Not in 2006! Not in 2007! Not in 2008!

And probably won't.

[UALRBSofL]

112. You voted for Kerry in 2004 even though he said he would not have changed his vote

I suppose Kerry gets a pass because he is male whereas Hillary being female doesn't get a pass on her vote. I guess after the 2008 voting cycle she will probably apologize in 2010, 2 years after the election cycle, much like what Kerry did. For The Record she has already stated in a debate she wished she could take that vote back.

[Major Hogwash]

129. Which part of "Hillary never apologized" do you not understand?

Because I can do this all fucking day long!

[ProSense]

132. He could have screamed it on a mountain top and some still would choose not to hear it. Kerry 2003

The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time, continued Kerry, I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn't yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You're God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.

History defends this explanation. The Bush administration brought Resolution 1441 to the United Nations in early November of 2002 regarding Iraq, less than a month after the Senate vote. The words "weapons inspectors" were prominent in the resolution, and were almost certainly the reason the resolution was approved unanimously by the Security Council. Hindsight reveals that Bush's people likely believed the Hussein regime would reject the resolution because of those inspectors. When Iraq opened itself to the inspectors, accepting the terms of 1441 completely, the administration was caught flat-footed, and immediately began denigrating the inspectors while simultaneously piling combat troops up on the Iraq border. The promises made to Kerry and the Senate that the administration would work with the U.N., would give the inspectors time to complete their work, that war would be an action of last resort, were broken.

link

Kerry, unlike Hillary, spoke out against Bush several times before Bush invaded, including this speech at Georgetown University on Thursday, January 23, 2003:

As our government conducts one war and prepares for another, I come here today to make clear that we can do a better job of making our country safer and stronger. We need a new approach to national security - a bold, progressive internationalism that stands in stark contrast to the too often belligerent and myopic unilateralism of the Bush Administration. I offer this new course at a critical moment for the country that we love, and the world in which we live and lead. Thanks to the work and sacrifice of generations who opposed aggression and defended freedom, for others as well as ourselves, America now stands as the world's foremost power. We should be proud: Not since the age of the Romans have one people achieved such preeminence. But we are not Romans; we do not seek an empire. We are Americans, trustees of a vision and a heritage that commit us to the values of democracy and the universal cause of human rights. So while we can be proud, we must be purposeful and mindful of our principles: And we must be patient - aware that there is no such thing as the end of history. With great power, comes grave responsibility.

<...>

Second, without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.

So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War. Regrettably the current Administration failed to take the opportunity to bring this issue to the United Nations two years ago or immediately after September 11th, when we had such unity of spirit with our allies. When it finally did speak, it was with hasty war talk instead of a coherent call for Iraqi disarmament. And that made it possible for other Arab regimes to shift their focus to the perils of war for themselves rather than keeping the focus on the perils posed by Saddam's deadly arsenal. Indeed, for a time, the Administration's unilateralism, in effect, elevated Saddam in the eyes of his neighbors to a level he never would have achieved on his own, undermining America's standing with most of the coalition partners which had joined us in repelling the invasion of Kuwait a decade ago.

In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing. But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war. As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.

Kerry has never wavered in calling out Bush on his immoral war, and he led the effort to set a deadline for withdrawal.

Hillary Clinton's problem has been not only her silence, but also her inability to explain her position with clarity and consistency.

Also, where was Hillary when Bill was "repeatedly" defending "Bush against the left on Iraq"?

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

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

link

In the middle of the 2004 campaign to make Bush a one-term president (select) for his illegal invasion, Bill Clinton was defending him.

[ecdab]

89. Dean dropped out of the race on February 17th , 2004

most of us never got the chance to vote for him.

[UALRBSofL]

93. He dropped out because to the General Public

voting in the primaries and caucus' Kerry's IWR was not an issue. Yet with Hillary all of the sudden it's an issue and more so because of her gender which I think the Obama camp has been making both an issue.

[ecdab]

107. You are correct that Dean dropped out because the voting

up that point was strongly against him and staying in was fairly pointless for him. I don't think Dean succeeded in making it into the same size of an issue as Obama has for numerous reasons. The media used the "Dean Scream" to try and turn him into a clown - and succeeded to some degree in doing so (even with many of my fellow Democrats). That hurt his narrative in a big way. Dean also lacked Obama's ability to communicate, that's not Dean's fault - most people can not communicate at Obama's level. In 2004 opinions of the war hadn't sunk as low as it has today - that gives Obama another advantage on Dean.

Also, it should be noted that many people were looking the other way in terms of John Kerry's vote on the IWR because they believed his status as a genuine war hero would allow him to over come George Bush. He very quickly was accepted as the "electable" candidate and that seemed to trump his IWR vote for many. That makes a big difference in how many people vote. This year neither Obama or Clinton has emerged as The Electable candidate. They have both made cases for their electability that enough people have bought into. I think that if Hillary had succeeded in making the case that only she could win in the GE - it would have trumped her IWR vote for many Democrats, just like it seems to have for John Kerry.

Hillary is certainly being taken to task more so than John Kerry was, but for the reasons I state above. I'm sure there are some random sexist pig-heads out there doing exactly what you say - I just don't see them playing into the perception of the IWR vote in meaningful way.

[Upton]

96. Hillary failed all of us

that were against the war, her vote was born out of political expediency. I can't ignore that.

[dogman]

97. That is why my belief in Obama was suspended.

When he voted to confirm Rice, I realized his Senatorial campaign had been nothing but rhetoric. He stated she was qualified even though she had schemed, lied, and had been derelict in her duties. She was one of the neo-con architects of this War. It definitely WILL NOT change with Obama either. Therefore I have moved beyond this issue. Unfortunately, the media gave us no choice when they defined our candidates as first and second tier, while trumpeting GOP losers like Ghouliani.

[meow mix]

100. i agree. there are many terms i could use to describe these people

but i will refrain from doing so.

[557188]

103. Obama is pro war

We got two pro war candidates because Democrats are too stupid to know how to pick real candidates.

Hillary just happens to be the lesser of two evils sadly.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

137. Lesser of Two Evils

........ because one candidate publicly oppose the war when it was unpopular to do so and the other voted to fund it?

And that makes who evil again?

[jlake]

124. And if you think Obama would have opposed the war from the US Senate, I have

a bridge to sell you.

[PresidentObama]

128. I supported John Kerry in 2003 and 2004 and I oppose the war. So did you, didn't you?

I know the meaning of principle.

I don't need a lecture from you.

[ClassWarrior]

130. Yes, in the GE. There weren't a lot of other options at that point.

NGU.

[sandnsea]

131. Jan 2003 "Mr President Do Not Rush To War"

If he had not vigorously opposed the actual invasion, and spoken out against the yellow cake lies, I would not have supported him.

[David Zephyr]

135. K&R. Thank you for helping cut through all the bullshit and to what matters.

:thumbsup: