Hillary didn't have the cojones to oppose the Iraq War.

[hulka38]

There has been a lot of talk recently from Hillary's endorsers and surrogates about how tough she is, how she will stand up to the right-wingers and fight for regular Americans, and praising her as someone with the "testicular fortitude" that America needs now.
Where were her brass balls when in 2002 when she was in the Bush/Cheney/Rove pressure cooker with everyone else?
The votes in support of the IWR were the result of a cynical and very effective propaganda campaign designed to damage if not destroy the careers of people who opposed it by characterizing them as effete appeasers who don't have the stomach to protect the country. It served to further brand Democrats in the subconscious minds of Americans as a bunch of Neville Chamberlains.
These were the sound bites and images carefully chosen by Rove and others pumped out by their echo chamber, that made voting against the IWR a political impossibility for many. Bush had cover in the bipartison IWR, a divided Democratic party, and a reeling left wing who looked like unpatriotic wimps to most of the country.
When the Iraq war became an undeniable nightmare, its supporters attempted to blame the intelligence agencies. To my dismay, it appears that many DUers have bought this. We should all know by now, as adults who can read and reason that the policy was in and the intelligence was being fixed around it.
Now, back to Hillary and her testicles. That her campaign is championing her as the candidate of moral courage and of fight in the face of powerful pressures is outrageous. The war continues to rage on.
Yes, Hillary is fighting. Fighting for the advancement of her political career just as she did in 2002 with her IWR vote. I have no doubt that she looks at that vote as a political mistake. I look at it as a human calamity.

[PBS Poll-435]

1. Thanks for your concern!

[Guaranteed]

6. And our soldiers thank YOU, sir, for yours.

;)

[cali]

15. hundreds of thousands of murdered Iraqi civilians

would certainly appreciate your concern- if HIlly hadn't hastened them to the grave.

And that's nothing but the fucking truth, and includes every lawmaker in Congress who voted for the IWR.

[PBS Poll-435]

16. Hindsight is 20/20

If Clinton was the tie-breaking vote, you might have a point.

[cali]

20. nonsense. As Senator Leahy said, there is no excuse for

issuing a BLANK CHECK to the president- any president- for war. Hindsight has absolutely nothing to do with it, and neither does whether a vote was a tie breaker or not. And if it's any consolation, I hold Kerry and Edwards and Biden and Dodd just as culpable as Hillary.

[moc]

28. Our leaders need foresight. Clinton clearly didn't/doesn't have it.

[wileedog]

34. So is she a fighter or not?

Or does she only fight when everyone else is too?

[cliffordu]

37. The ability and will to do one's own research is certainly called for....

And the courage of one's convictions is a valuable asset in a President.

Or a Congressperson.

She kind of lacks both.

[Mooney]

2. Thank you.

Totally spot on.

[sellitman]

3. Huzzah!

Voted and kicked!

Exactly
Right on
perfect
On the money

Etc

[PATRICK]

4. I think it is worse than that

Indifference to the human cost of Foggy Bottom policy "wisdom" is more the issue. I think a lot of Dems WANTED strong action against Hussein and were all too happy to let Junior get the trouble and the glory.
Far second, despite their naive protests, was the knowledge how Bush would leap to illegal war and botch and exploit everything. Emerging from the ashes it seemed clear that these types wanted the general, though faked and controlled, popular adulation for the war and the alternative hope of being judicious 'critics" who can mop up Junior's failures. They wanted things both ways.

That was the true cowardly naivete, that stupid choice of a murderous in between ride to the next parity switch to top centrist Dems. For them it was pragmatic safe wisdom that could ignore 10,000 children who would be alive, well and unmaimed today, sleep well at night and run smiling as a hero/critic/hawk for president. To have such people even in consideration by a large number of Dems has been pure poison for the people who indeed are more courageous, wiser and better suited for high office than our current poobahs.(Who HAVE to be because of war, death, disease, tyranny and poverty pushed on us with no Congressional protection whatsoever)

No, if you want someone who is naive and who is brave look at Gore. Reading his book "Assault on Reason" is like a tongue in cheek letter from an alternate crazy universe. Horrrific crises and scandals and crims are delineated moderately, understated and simplified, and in the tone that should warn the reader that for all the truth the remedy is fluffed over, the defenselessness not even yet sinking in, the rage muted by God knows what noble sanguinity. The anger justly climaxes in details of the crimes and their devasting exposition. Then it is all anticlimax, as if Law is mystified, action misplaced somewhere, and instead of a warrior there is harmless school marm with a rule book standing before an advancing horde of barabarians.

Gore has hope of being a good president nonetheless. There is none for those who have become heartless players in the ruined game as a pre-condition for assuming power. The cowardice of violence is surviving off the front line to get praised and promoted for the win later. More honest and less cowardly is the Kerry or Edwards style vote, vigorously for the ideal policy and indeed ignorant of the logical outcomes. Unfortunately they front for the exploiters behind them and think, mistakenly, they are leading the pack. They change their stand righteously, the ranks of exploiters cannot. They too had hope of being decent presidents, prone to continuing US bloody policy error as they might have been.

When one is sinfully wrong and gulled willingly by opaque if not transparent lies into throwing the lives of millions under the bus, many other vices attach like feathers to the tar. Ultimately you have the utter, variegated degeneracy of the Bush GOP, no vice or failing left uncommitted. The mystique of elections, "leadership" and presidential power change absolutely nothing in moral reality.

[FrenchieCat]

5. What? You mean there really isn't any "Testical Fortitude" there....there?

:wow:

[sponge bob]

7. Edwards and Kerry didn't have cojones either, and people here love them

And no, i didn't take cojones to apologize, at a time when Americans had already turned against the war.

[democrattotheend]

8. They're not running anymore, or claiming "I'm a fighter"

And I think a lot of people did hold it against Kerry when he was running (Dean's candidacy never would have gotten off the ground if Kerry had voted against the war) and some held it against Edwards this time around as well.

[sponge bob]

9. I know. Just pointing out that even men lacked cojones back then n/t

[EmilyAnne]

10. I think that its the cojones obsessed people who sent us into this unjust war.

[PoliticalAmazon]

11. She doesn't have the "testicular fortitude" either, but going by the size of her...

...kameltoe, I could be wrong.

[nightrain]

12. I really don't like it when women's strength is attributed to a male body part....

That just is so demeaning to me. It's sexist and makes it seem as if the standard is something male. EUUUUUU. I wish those who use that kind of language would stop using it. She has ovaries. And she is very courageous.

[hulka38]

21. This language came from one of her supporters,

a labor union leader in NC during a press conference. She was standing directly behind him listening to his introduction. Her campaign is encouraging this sort of blue-collar talk as it helps to increase her already overwhelming support among working class whites. Her camp has introduced these terms to describe her. But when it came to the most important vote of her political career, she wilted as did many others.

[nightrain]

38. I really don't care who said it or why, that doesnt matter to me... It's

offensive to me and anatomically inaccurate. A woman's courage has NOTHING to do with male body parts. Please, could those who use that kind of language describing anyone's strength/courage be a bit more creative, and check out what makes you want to take away a woman's strength/courage and attribute it to men??!!!

[MrSlayer]

13. It was all political for her.

If the public sentiment was against, she would have voted against.

[1776Forever]

14. But But Hillary is Rambo don't you know???

Image courtesy of About.com

[backscatter712]

17. Hillary is not a fighter. She's a coward.

[mainer]

18. Only Obama seems to have the cojones

I just sent Obama another contribution and now I'm at the max I can give. Because the past few weeks (esp. the stupid Hillary idea about the gas tax) convinced me that she's a political coward. Obama's the only one with the courage to be truthful.

Honestly, I don't see what the difference is between Hillary and McCain these days. Both of them will get you an endless Iraq war.

[old thor]

25. Balls do not necessarily equal brains

Obama may have the balls but common sense must prevail in this
troubled world.  I do believe that Hillary (with Bill's
coaching) can do the job.  My only fear with Obama is Oprah
Winfrey as Secretary of State, Jesse Jackson as Secretary of
Defense, Al Sharpton as Attorney General, and Barry Bonds as
Secretary of Education.  There may even be a cabinet post for
Louis Farrakhan.  I jest, but many in our country have these
fears regarding Obama's presidency.  I do admire intellect
above all and he certainly exhibits that most desirable
commodity. 

[leftynyc]

39. He didn't even bother to show up

for the Kyle/Lieberman vote - that's what you call cojones???

Both candidates could use some lessons in courage.

[Cha]

19. hilary's only tough when she's

sending other people's kids to war and lying outta both sides of her mouth with the mainstream mediwhores backing her up.

[old thor]

24. Not trying to defend Hillary but!!

I wonder where this forum would be if "W" had it
right- not that I think he could get anything right - but
Saddam had to go.  WMDs or not the man was a butcher.  I do
think that Saddam should have been left to rot in a cell but
that's another topic.  Anybody  (Hillary or Obama)is a better
choice than "W" or his clone McCain!  I'm an old man
who served during the Korean thing.  We (the US) were the
great liberators of the world and we were admired by most. 
Not so under "W".  The dollar when I was overseas
was the valued currency - not anymore under Bush. Bash Hillary
or Obama but either one offers a positive change from the
present disaster.  I'm an independent but I'm damn sure that
McCain is not the answer. Nor is Nader!!!

[Cha]

29. Bullllll Shiiiiiiit.

[Jed Dilligan]

22. It wasn't an act of cowardice, it was a bet on neocon foreign policy.

Even worse IMO.

[hulka38]

26. Do you think that she believed in that neocon foreign policy?

Would she have lied us into invading and occupying Iraq as Bush did if she was President? No way. She bet on the neocon foreign policy because Bush/Rove forced her hand to choose. She chose not to risk her career aspirations. Authorizing a war for any reason other than the defense of the nation is despicable. It was an act of cowardice.

[Jed Dilligan]

31. I think she actually believed we would "win."

[hulka38]

32. The U.S. is the most dominant military power the world has ever seen.

We spend more on defense than nearly the entire world combined. The U.S. military was going up against a petty third world dictator whose army had been utterly crushed just a decade earlier and at the same time been under severe economic sanctions. At the time, the definition of "win" meant get to Baghdad and topple Saddam from power. That was what the simplistic conventional thinkers who dominate Washington thought would constitute victory. By that definition, of course we were going to "win". Did anyone honestly think that the Iraq army was going to stop the U.S. blitz or even slow it down? It took foresight, intellect and some knowledge of the history of the region to understand the dangers of invasion and occupation after the
"win". Hillary failed badly here as well.

[Jed Dilligan]

33. Exactly. The problem is her belief in the coercive power of the state.

Short of all out genocide, you can't change people with an army.

[suston96]

23. But, but on another thread Hillary is being accused of trying to be like man....

...and must stop campaigning like a man....! How does that figure?

Maybe you Hillary haters should have your own convention and make up your minds: - balls, or no balls...?

[moc]

27. I agree with you completely. Hillary never took a principled stand in her life.

Not without first checking which way the political winds were blowing, that is.

Anyone who minimizes how difficult it was to stand against the insane rush to war, whether voting in the Senate or House or not, is either engaging in selective amnesia or is intellectually disengenuous. It took a lot of courage for Al Gore, for example, to publicly denounce the rush to war. Likewise, it took courage for Barack to do so as well. There were courageous ones in the House and Senate who voted no. Any public denouncement of the war took courage.

Hillary had no courage, she had no "balls". She did what was politically expedient, and she gambled wrong. She is one of many whom I will never forgive for this debacle we call the Iraq war.

[VolcanoJen]

30. Damn, that's good.

Now, you, my friend, you possess testicular fortitude.

Amen to this post. Finally!!!

[Barack_America]

35. That's because she wasn't opposed to the war.

She was for it.

I'm sure you've seen the Code Pink video by now.

The problem is that now she doesn't have the "cojones" to admit that she was for the war, made a mistake and is sorry.

[hulka38]

36. Serious stones were a requirement to vote against the IWR. Admitting you made a mistake speaks more

to character and honesty than it does to courage IMO.