Hillary Hypocrisy

[Nbadan]

DES MOINES, Iowa - New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton blamed President Bush on Saturday for misusing authority given him by Congress to act in Iraq, but conceded "I take responsibility" for her role in allowing that to happen.

--

"I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority," said Clinton. "He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do."

The responsibility Clinton said she accepts was helping clear the way for Bush's path in Iraq.

"I take responsibility for having voted to give him that authority," she said. "My focus is on what we do now. That is the proper debate."


If Hillary had any balls, and if she really meant what she said above, she would lead a Senate and Congressional vote to end funding for the Iraq war. The fact that she continues to sit on her hands, while decrying about being lied to by the administration about intelligence she should have verified, shows that it's all about political calculations for her....

...that's why she can't be trusted.

[boutons_]

I don't think de-funding is the way to go.

In fact, the situation, "enormous progress" as dickhead keeps lying about it (like he lied about Saddam connected to WTC for YEARS! ), has NO GOOD SOLUTION.

With the US escalating, we now have Iran and al-Qaida also escalating.
And the Saudis financing and helping the Iraqi Shiites. etc, etc, straight into hell.

All dubya and dickhead are doing now is trying salvage their legacies from being known forever as the lying, asshole, incompetent Repugs who lost Iraq, wasted the US military, and plunged the US and M/E into higher risks and dangers.

Hillary is yet another weak Dem candidate, totally inauthentic. Certainly not presidential. She'll be swift-boated fatally. Just wait until the right wing nutters start depicting Slick Willy as First Gentleman, "two for the price of one", etc. She/he have too much baggage, even for the Dems.

[Nbadan]

I disagree. I think the whole game plan is to 'poison the well' early and eliminate as many candidates that aren't named Clinton or beholden to a Bush. Rally wingnuts against Hillary and toward Guiliani, and rally moon-bats against Guiliani and toward Hillary. It's a brilliant idea.

[Hillary]

You can borrow my balls anytime Nbadan.

[scott]

What we need is a non-binding resolution to really affect some change!

[Guru of Nothing]

The Wizard of Oz rocks.

[JoeChalupa]

Let the games begin.

[Nbadan]

Clinton: I will end Iraq war


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In perhaps her strongest statement to date, Sen. Hillary Clinton told Democratic National Committee members Friday that she would never have invaded Iraq in the first place and, if elected president, would end U.S. involvement.

"If I had been president in October of 2002, I would not have started this war," Clinton told the party faithful, some of them concerned about her 2003 vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq -- a vote she has not directly called a mistake.

"If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president I will," added the New York Democrat, who announced late last month she is seeking the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination.

As she discussed Iraq, the New York Democrat was forced to speak over shouts for more definitive action from the anti-war group Code Pink, some of whose members were arrested earlier this week outside Clinton's Senate office.

CNN (http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/clinton-i-will-end-iraq-war.html)

Yeah, she'll march them out of Iraq alright, and into Iran..


U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

ITH (http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/02/02/america/NA-GEN-US-Clinton-Iran.php)

[smeagol]

Hillary is a politician and she speaks from both sides of his mouth to win votes.

Big surprise.

[gtownspur]

_____ is a politician and he/she speaks from both sides of his/her mouth to win votes.

Big surprise.


A) Obama

B) Edwards



Insert that and see whether those options work, or just give up and admit Hillary completely lies about her previous positions when suitable, instead of altering her positions.

Atleast kerry always blurted out the truth to his change of positions, sometimes with his foot in his mouth.

[gtownspur]

Hillary is a politician and she speaks from both sides of his mouth to win votes.

Big surprise.



see the irony... :lol

[Nbadan]

Feingold, strikes gold, against Hitlery...

Feingold: It’s Us vs. The Washington Consultant Class on Iraq


Following Republican shenanigans on the floor of the Senate tonight whereby the GOP filibustered Sen. John Warner’s (R-VA) non-binding Iraq resolution, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) held a conference call to discuss exactly what the hell is going on. You can listen to a three-minute audio excerpt in Windows Media format here and MP3 format here - it is an exchange I had with Feingold about the power equation at work behind all the rhetoric coming out Washington.

After the election we had on November 7th and after polls have registered the public’s deep anger at the President for trying to escalate the war, you would think Democrats would be pushing legislation with real teeth and not just non-binding nothingness, especially if the GOP was going to filibuster anyway. Well, you’d be wrong. In the audio excerpt, I asked Feingold if this is because of Ben Nelson-ism - that is, because of conservative Democrats who are willing to use a brinkmanship progressive senators rarely use. As you can hear, Feingold says it’s even deeper - he says this is a battle between Democrats’ Washington consultant class and the rest of the country - and he specifically targets the D.C. elites from the Clinton administration, who he accurately notes largely supported the war from the get-go.

Whether you agree fully with Feingold’s analysis or not, the Wisconsin senator’s view of what’s going on is fascinating and bold, in that he bluntly talks about a subject too often considered taboo inside the Beltway. His statement once again reminds us of why there has to be real pressure from the outside such as the Progressive States Network’s Anti-Escalation Campaign and/or Act for Change’s latest call to action. Listen to the excerpt - it’s pretty refreshing to hear a U.S. Senator talk so candidly about the Washington power structure and how it really operates.

David S (http://davidsirota.com/index.php/2007/02/05/feingold-its-us-vs-the-washington-consultant-class-on-iraq)

Why do Progressive hate Hitlery?

[Nbadan]

By BETH FOUHY, Associated Press Writer
43 minutes ago


NEW YORK - Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has embarked on one of the more ambitious fundraising efforts, with a goal of raising $15 million by the end of March and amassing more than $75 million before 2008.

Snip...

"I don't think anyone can stop her. She's unstoppable — she's got such a machine," said John Catsimatidis, a New York businessman and longtime member of Clinton's finance team.

(What a fucken joke!) :rolleyes

A core group of about 20 people — many of whom have been raising money for the Clintons since President Bill Clinton first ran in 1992 — have been asked to try and raise $1 million apiece for Hillary Clinton's 2008 effort. A larger group will be asked to meet lesser but still-ambitious goals of $750,000 and $500,000 on down.

Snip...

Clinton's campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, is on a national book tour to promote his memoir. He is using the tour to meet with major donors and has asked supporters to commit to Clinton and limit donations to her campaign alone.

The campaign's first major gala, in New York on Friday, targets supporters under the age of 45 — a crowd referred to as "HillBlazers." Tickets start at $250 per person, with committee members asked to raise $25,000 apiece.

Hillblazers :lol ....that's the money quote.

[Jelly]

If Hillary had any balls, and if she really meant what she said above, she would lead a Senate and Congressional vote to end funding for the Iraq war. The fact that she continues to sit on her hands, while decrying about being lied to by the administration about intelligence she should have verified, shows that it's all about political calculations for her....

...that's why she can't be trusted.

1. I'm not sure a junior senator could have verified it when neither the White House, the Brits, nor the CIA nor pretty much any other Senator could verify it.
2. How should we end funding in Iraq? I think everyone (except the terrorists) hates what a mess Iraq has become. But will abrubtly cutting off funding help?? Or will it cost millions of lives instead of thousands?
3. It's all about political calculations for EVERY politician....even the good ones. That's life.

[Nbadan]

I'm not sure a junior senator could have verified it when neither the White House, the Brits, nor the CIA nor pretty much any other Senator could verify it

Ah, but the doubts were out there. Scott Ritter knew, the Russians knew, the Chinese knew, the Germans knew, even Obama knew, that's why he voted against the Iraq war resolution. Hitlery was in some very powerful committees with 'special access' to info not all Senators knew, that's why they are called select committees. She should be apologizing to the American people for her failure, not running for Prez.

[Jelly]

Ah, but the doubts were out there. Scott Ritter knew, the Russians knew, the Chinese knew, the Germans knew, even Obama knew, that's why he voted against the Iraq war resolution. Hitlery was in some very powerful committees with 'special access' to info not all Senators knew, that's why they are called select committees. She should be apologizing to the American people for her failure, not running for Prez.

I'm too lazy to research the other countries, but I know Russia's intelligence was confirming our own intelligence and I think most of the international community believed Iraq had WMDs but that it just couldn't be proven.

In fact, I recall seeing an Iraqi scientist who had been involved in their weapons program on an interview. He said that EVEN SADDAM thought he had WMDs but no one in their right mind would dare tell him otherwise. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's certainly plausible that in a country where athletes get tortured for losing soccer games that scientists would lie about what they had or hadn't accomplished.

As far as Scott Ritter, he came across as an embittered egomaniac with major credibility issues who had been bought out by the Iraqis.
If he hadn't acted like such an arrogant asshole on TV than maybe we wouldn't have all thought he'd gone to the dark side. (I still think he's a creepy, shady character who probably pocketed some cash from somewhere)

Obama gets major points for being one of the only politicians with the guts to vote against the war, but the overwhelming majority of congress voted FOR IT. Singling out Hillary on this is ridiculous. So she had access to the same bad intelligence as some other committee members. Everyone got duped. And they're all guilty of letting this war happen. Howard Dean is the only major player who can hold his head high on the war issue.

[Nbadan]

I'm too lazy to research the other countries, but I know Russia's intelligence was confirming our own intelligence and I think most of the international community believed Iraq had WMDs but that it just couldn't be proven.

In fact, I recall seeing an Iraqi scientist who had been involved in their weapons program on an interview. He said that EVEN SADDAM thought he had WMDs but no one in their right mind would dare tell him otherwise. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's certainly plausible that in a country where athletes get tortured for losing soccer games that scientists would lie about what they had or hadn't accomplished.

the final verdict is that these countries didn't buy into the US WMD claims and didn't send troops to Iraq despite sending troops to Afghanistan. It wasn't about oil for food manipulation, if you've been reading this forum you already know that a Texas company was one of the largest receipients of Iraqi oil coupons.

[Nbadan]

In fact, I recall seeing an Iraqi scientist who had been involved in their weapons program on an interview. He said that EVEN SADDAM thought he had WMDs but no one in their right mind would dare tell him otherwise. I don't know if that's true or not, but it's certainly plausible that in a country where athletes get tortured for losing soccer games that scientists would lie about what they had or hadn't accomplished.

One of Saddam's brother-in-law defected to the U.S., told everyone he could that he was in charge of Saddam's WMD program and that he had over-seen the destruction of Saddams WMD stockpile. Eventually his wife longed again for Iraq, so they returned. Saddam had him promply executed.

[Nbadan]

As far as Scott Ritter, he came across as an embittered egomaniac with major credibility issues who had been bought out by the Iraqis.
If he hadn't acted like such an arrogant asshole on TV than maybe we wouldn't have all thought he'd gone to the dark side. (I still think he's a creepy, shady character who probably pocketed some cash from somewhere)

He may be shady, but it has nothing to do with pocketing cash...


Ritter received $400,000 from Iraqi American businessman Shaker Al-Khaffaji for the financing of his 2000 documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth About UNSCOM and the Disarming of Iraq[16]. According to a Washington Times article, Al-Khaffaji obtained the money from the U.N. Oil-for-Food program for goods imported into the country in violation of U.N. sanctions [17]. Ritter denies any quid pro quo with Al-Khaffaji and according to a Financial Times article, when Ritter was asked “how he would characterise anyone suggesting that Mr Khafaji was offering allocations in his name, Mr Ritter replied: "I'd say that person's a fucking liar. Quote unquote. And tell him to come over here so I can kick his ass." [18]

More


During the time when Ritter was publicly warning the US public about the results of a US attack on Iraq and questioning the Bush administration's allegations about Saddam Hussein's possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) as a reason to attack Iraq, information was released to the media from anonymous sources about a legal case wherein apparently all charges were dropped. The Daily Gazette first reported that Ritter -- whose full name is William Scott Ritter Jr. -- was arrested in June 2001 in the town of Colonie, NY near Albany.

The New York Daily News further reported that Ritter's arrest was part of an Internet sting. The report said he was arrested for having sexual discussions over the Internet with a person he thought was an underage girl. This individual turned out to be an undercover police officer.

Both reports say that Ritter later struck a deal with Assistant District Attorney Cynthia Preiser that allowed the case to be dismissed and the records sealed. The reports also say Preiser was subsequently fired for failing to inform Albany County District Attorney Paul Clyne of the case prior to making a deal with Ritter.

Local NewsChannel 13 reported in June 2001 about an arrest of a 39-year-old William Ritter of Delmar on charges he tried to lure a 16-year-old girl he met on the Internet to a Burger King in Menands. According to police, the intent of that meeting was so that she could watch him perform sexual acts on himself. [20]

Ritter has stated he was charged with a class B misdemeanor. The case received an "adjournment in contemplation of dismissal," meaning charges would be dismissed and all records of the case sealed if Ritter stayed out of trouble for six months. Ritter states all charges were dismissed and categorically denies the accusation, saying dismissals of this type are made to protect innocent parties such as himself. [21]

Colonie, NY Deputy Police Chief Steve Heider explained, "Well generally speaking, if during the course of a court proceeding the defense asks for a sealing order based on a plea to a very lesser charge, a court can issue that under the CPL 160-50, which basically seals the entire record from the point of its start to the point of its finish."


Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Ritter)

[Nbadan]

Well, Hillary has flip-flopped on the war again, except this time she has made it retroactive...

Hillary: I didn't vote for 'pre-emptive war'


Manchester – New York Sen. Hillary Clinton today insisted her 2002 vote for a resolution authorizing an invasion of Iraq was “not a vote for a pre-emptive war,” but was instead a show of support for further United Nations-directed weapons inspections.

The Democratic presidential front-runner has been criticized by hard-line anti-war groups for making that vote more than four years ago and for not apologizing now, as fellow candidate John Edwards has done.

“I will let others speak for themselves,” she said in a telephone interview from Washington.

“I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq.

“When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war,” the former first lady said.

Union Leader (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Hillary%3A+I+didn\'t+vote+fo r+\'pre-emptive+war\'&articleId=cb70bb03-8566-49ca-aa9a-e965c8d3220a)

Let's not forget that Hillary sees nothing wrong, morally or ethically, with the US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq. Hillary's disagreement with Bush is that she feels that Bush "mismanaged" the war.

[ChumpDumper]

So if Hillary gets the nomination, who will you vote for?

[Nbadan]

So if Hillary gets the nomination, who will you vote for?


I told you, Wesley Clark.

[Nbadan]

BANG! to Hillary's non-commital non-apology for her pro-Iraq War vote in 03...


"I am not anti-Hillary. I have even had the pleasure of voting for her once and sincerely respect her intelligence and abilities. But, with all due respect, if it is true that Senator Clinton was misled into voting for the war in Iraq by the Bush administration, she is much too gullible to be qualified to be the next President of the United States of America. If Hillary were truly qualified to be our new leader, where was the consciousness post 9/11 that allows a great leader to intuitively discern fact from fiction, and keep their heads while those about them are losing theirs? What good is her self-proclaimed experience and leadership abilities if she can't see her own hand in front of her face during such times?"

And later:

"Barack Obama may not have been standing in front of the tanks in order to halt them in their tracks, but at least he wasn't driving one of them"

Brown Bear Press (http://brownbearpress.net/essays/hillary.html)

[ChumpDumper]

So if Hillary were running against Sam Brownback, you'd vote for Sam?

[Nbadan]

So if Hillary were running against Sam Brownback, you'd vote for Sam?

NOTA

[xrayzebra]

dan for Brownback? Not a chance, dan is a yellow dog dimm-o-crap all the way!

[Nbadan]

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2007/bs070222.gif