Then quit pretending you know of all her "crimes."
it made sense because we need to know who is in the country!!!!! that's what she said. she made that claim during the debate as well that this program indentified who is in the country.. we do need to know who is in this country right yoni? so would you agree with spitzer's attempt to try and indentify who's here illegally a good attempt to accomplish this? she also followed up her statements that this problem should be handled by the feds..
Well, you don't do it by giving illegal aliens the one do ent accepted by most voting precincts and, by which doing so, would completely up several national security processes -- such as air travel.
Yeah, I agree, we should know who's in our country but, there's no way Spitzer's plan was going to do that.
No, I don't agree it was a good attempt. And, if she followed up with a statement to that affect why is she saying Spitzer's idea sounds good?
But, more importantly, why isn't she saying -- now -- yes, it's a good idea or no, it's a bad idea to license illegal immigrants. Even if she was confused by the complexity on debate night. Answering that simple yes or no question should have been on her things to do before now.
If they are able to pass a drivers test and the license specifically identifies the person as an illegal immigrant, what's the problem?
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss...
I'm not sure you can get more clear than that. Mrs. Clinton should answer the question, "Yes, I support Governor Spitzer's goal of awarding driver's licenses to illegal immigrants."
It's what her campaign is saying.
What's even more hilarious is that the New Hampshire editorial board -- from whom the original question was drawn by Tim Russert, wrote an editorial defending Mrs. Clinton and, after reading it, I was ready to admit that I was wrong.
However, when I got to the end of the editorial, they had updated it:
So, apparently, Hillary disagrees with you and the Nashua Telegraph editorial board; she supports -- no, BROADLY supports Governort Spitzer's plan to license illegals.
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This broadly
adverb
1. without regard to specific details or exceptions; "he interprets the law broadly"
And, that'd be all well and good for your argument if the New York Times didn't attribute the part about supporting (broadly or otherwise), "...Mr. Spitzer’s goal of awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants," to the Clinton Campaign.
Because, no matter how hard you try and turn the word "broadly" into a statement about some nebulous non-specific immigration plan of the Governor's, the campaign is the one that said, "...her [Hillary Clinton's] statement was intended to signal that she broadly supported Mr. Spitzer’s goal of awarding driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
That's pretty specific...even in a broad sense.
Slate writes on the Clinton unraveling....
SlateHillary Clinton's lead in New Hampshire is now only 10 points in Rasmussen's robo-poll--down from 23 points in mid-September. Ten points isn't nothing two months before a New Hampshire primary, but it's pretty close to nothing. Especially if it's ten-points-and-falling. ... P.S.: Hillary has now used two of what she must have considered the most powerful weapons in her arsenal--1) the gender victim/Rick Lazio card, and 2) her husband - and they both backfired. Doesn't that make them hard to use again? ... Hillary shouldn't panic. But judging from her performance so far, she will.
...
Hitting A Vain: A full week after the Democratic debate, Hillary Clinton is still flailing on the licenses-for-illegals issue--justifying her position on unconvincing federalist grounds, letting her husband mount an equally specious it's-all-too-complicated defense. Maybe she can keep it going until Iowa Caucus Day! ... Yuval Levin is astounded by this performance. Wouldn't it be better for her just to take the hit for supporting Spitzer's plan and move on? The most troubling aspect of this incident, for Democrats, isn't that Hillary can't finesse an issue as well as her husband--we knew that. It's the possibility that a) she panics in adversity--a point Levin emphasizes or b) she's too vain to let herself be perceived as having given a wrong answer, so she goes back to correct it even when that only compounds the damage. ..
I'll be sad, but just live with it.
don't worry 50% of the country has been sad for the last 7 yrs and they have managed to survive.
but there is one bit of good news. cheney told america that if dems to control of congress that we would be more vulnerable to an attack. it didn't happen..
And after being sad for absolutely no reason, at that.
How do you know?
Being more vulnerable and actually being attacked are two different things. Maybe the administration stepped up efforts to thwart the terrorists in response to this Congress making us more vulnerable.
or was just lying again. playing politics with national security..
You have to prove he lied once to say again...
Can she do it? Oh yeah. But she has to get over the "I can't stand the " at ude of those who know she can do the job but just plain don't like her.
I won't waste my time finding where says one thing and then later the exact opposite happens. I guess you could him a liar an incompetent. or medal of freedom recipient..In 1991, Cheney noted the intense sectarian rivalries that dominate Iraqi society and the likely inability to maintain stability in Baghdad. As for replacing Saddam with a democracy, Cheney asked his audience, “How much credibility is that government going to have if it’s set up by the United States military when it’s there?” He added:
“The notion that we ought to now go to Baghdad and somehow take control of the country strikes me as an extremely serious one in terms of what we’d have to do once we got there. You’d probably have to put some new government in place. It’s not clear what kind of government that would be, how long you’d have to stay. For the U.S. to get involved militarily in determining the outcome of the struggle over who’s going to govern in Iraq strikes me as a classic definition of a quagmire.”
Then, in 1994, Cheney reiterated his position.
“Once you got to Iraq and took it over, and took down Saddam Hussein’s government, then what are you going to put in its place? That’s a very volatile part of the world and if you take down the central government in Iraq, you can easily end up seeing pieces of Iraq fly off. How many additional dead Americans is Saddam worth? And our judgment was - not very many and I think we got it right.”
As ThinkProgress noted this morning, Cheney was repeating the line as recently as 2000:
“[T]he only way you could have done that would be to go to Baghdad and occupy Iraq. If we’d done that, the U.S. would have been all alone. We would not have had the support of the coalition, especially of the Arab nations that fought alongside us in Kuwait. None of them ever set foot inside Iraq. Conversations I had with leaders in the region afterwards–they all supported the decision that was made not to go to Baghdad.
“They were concerned that we not get into a position where we shifted instead of being the leader of an international coalition to roll back Iraqi aggression to one in which we were an imperialist power, willy-nilly moving into capitals in that part of the world taking down governments.”
I'll just call him a flip flopper.. can't decide.. whether invading iraq is a good iudea or a bad idea..
MR. RUSSERT: And even though the International Atomic Energy Agency said he does not have a nuclear program, we disagreeAnd we believe he has, in fact, recons uted nuclear weapons. I think Mr. ElBaradei, frankly, is wrong. And I think if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq is concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don’t have any reason to believe they’re any more valid this time than they’ve been in the past.
(End videotape)
MR. RUSSERT: Recons uted nuclear weapons. You misspoke.
VICE PRES. CHENEY: Yeah. I did misspeak. I said repeatedly during the show weapons capability. We never had any evidence that he had acquired a nuclear weapon.
it's amazing that our beloved darth vader lied when he proclaimed that:
And we believe he has, in fact, recons uted nuclear weapons.
but of course didn't lie he simply misspoke... of course his little slip came during the selling of the war but hey we don't have the right to challenge the ster..
I sure wish you Bush-Whackers would be as hard on democrats as you are president Bush's administration. At least be fair about things. You can even find far more things to complain about with the democrats.
I sure wish you Clinton-Whackers would be as hard on republicans at least be fair about things. You can even find far more things to complain about with the democrats.
This is how you justify all the lies?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
