Shut Up! You Voted for the War.
 

Hillary continues to say she didn't know Bush was "fixing" the intelligence. If that is true, she isn't fit to be President. The real deal is that she played the war-monger card to consolidate power in New York and she isn't fit to be President. (I should know better than to listen to NPR in the morning.)

Why would she know about the administration rigging intelligence beforehand? She is many things but she's not an omniscent Goddess. To be fair, I would have voted for the war too, for different reasons than what Powell proposed at the UN. Does that make me unfit to criticize the incompentency of the handling of the war as well?

You should have been getting your news from the Cellar before the war!:) Maybe I'm being unfair because to me and a bunch of other folks here it seemed obvious. Hillary had access to much more information than us and yet she chose to go along.

More of the Iranian-providing, Chalabi-fed information, yes.

The discussion was much broader than that. UT's thread and some nutter's reply.

My money is on Obama.

We all would base our votes on the "best" information at a given time. In 1490, we all would have voted that the world is flat. In 1495, hopefully we would vote that the world is round. Changing information changes perspective.

Give him a Republican Congress to butt heads with and I'd flip the lever.

The world wasn't flat when Hillary made a political decision rather than a moral one.

This may be a bit irrelevant but I'm sure most people in 1490 thought the Earth was round. If there was a debate it would have been like the evolution/creationist debate of today. Every sailor knew the Earth was round and if anyone had any basic knowledge of geographyor have ever seen a ship "disappear" over the horizon, they could have figured it out.

How is it like the evolution/creationist debate? I don't see how either of those are proveable beyond a doubt whereas the fact that the earth is round certainly was.

Evolution can be observed, demonstrated; you can base predictions on it, and watch them come true. Don't let yourself be confused about this.

I agree on that one Flint. Most assuredly. I don't think the creationist side can be completely disproven though. To me that's the main difference.

Creationism is not a testable hypothesis. It cannot be proven or disproven, therefore it isn't science (for whatever that's worth). :::hijackman!:::

Well there we go. Pierce just used a bad analogy then. ;)

Well analogies are never perfect but basically, educated people knew the Earth was round.

I don't know what Hillary's position was at the time, but I think I remember at least some of the other Democrats who voted "for the war" stated that they didn't want to go to war and didn't approve of going to war, but they were voting "to give the president authority to go to war" so that Bush would have that threat of war as a negotiation tool when dealing with Saddam during the cat and mouse game leading up to the war. They (the democrats) were foolish and should have known that Bush wouldn't try to negotiate as soon as he had war approval. But that's a different complaint about the Democrats.

So as far as education goes Pierce, is it the evolutionists who are clever or the creationists? Are you suggesting that one group is 'educated' and the other is not?

Why are you pulling the politically correct card on me?

Yes, I am saying the majority of people that are 'educated' in Biology will be evolutionists. That doesn't mean there aren’t any smart creationists or dumb evolutionists though. Evolution is as well accepted as gravity when it comes to theories in the scientific community so you can not say that 'education' doesn't have a part in it.

I'm not suggesting that education doesn't play a part. I just wondered if you thought creationists were uneducated in general.

Hilary's position, as I understand it, is tenuous. Today, we measure who is and is not leadership material because we have almost none. George Jr lied. There is no way around that fact. A real leader states that fact bluntly. Then a leader demands viable solutions. How many demonstrate balls and honesty?

Currently, America's only viable solution is found in 79 objectives from the Iraq Study Group. But even many Democrats also are not being honest with us. Many Republican who know this president is still lying are still playing politics. That was the point of Sen Chuck Hagel of Nebraska who demands every party member be formally committed rather than play politics. Every Senator and Congressman should be held personally accountable to a solution - and their entire Congressional reputation should be tarnished accordingly.

This is no time to play politics. We need leaders in part because the Eisenhower and Stennis are not on a training cruise. Do you remember how much you feared on 10 September? Better remember. Things are only getting worse.

Hilary's position is not defensible. A leader called Hilary would instead campaign incessantly for 79 objectives from the Iraq Study Group ... and demand what only leaders have the balls to do. Her only hope is a strong offense - to act like a leader - to join the ranks of honest Americans who finally acknowledge this president lied. She is not doing that.

Too many Democrats and Republicans fear to ask THE question every week: "When do we go after bin Laden?" We don't demand they act as leaders. So they let us forget the only reason that justified any current war. When do we go after bin Laden - a question that only those with leadership abilities dare ask? Bin Laden is the only smoking gun that justifies any war. Somehow everyone forgets the only smoking gun that justified any war. So bin Laden runs free. And we have a government full of backboneless or self serving corrupt leaders.

"When do we go after bin Laden" ... and why am I the only one asking the only fact in the world that justifies any American war.

Good questions.

Nobody will openly ask that question because they know the answer is most likely, to do that we have to go to Pakistan. Pakistan has nukes and zealots and is a strategic ally. :(

You can lead a horse to water...
 

India will not even comply with the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty - so we will give them what they most need - nuclear material? Pakistan was proliferating nuclear technology all over the world - and they too are called an ally?

Meanwhile, America announces intent to 'Pearl Harbor' Iran and N Korea. Therefore both must develop nuclear weapons - as Putin so accurately noted. Therefore these countries are evil?

As long as bin Laden runs free, then George Jr can justify any actions. No wonder no one asks, "When do we go after bin Laden?" It’s just too convenient to let bin Laden run free - and to ignore event in India and Pakistan that create nuclear instability and that America endorses.

Namely, that they are either being disingenuous -- IOW, lying to the American people -- or they are incompetent at foreign policy. Big surprise there, as Democratic Administrations have tottered from incompetence to failure at foreign policy for the last fifty-three years, perhaps the last fifty-seven depending on how you score the Korean War. They've fallen a long way since FDR. Kennedy may have been the last decent foreign-policy President they had.

Tw mistakes catching a terrorist figurehead -- OBL -- for destroying the terror groups, which is what would really bring about the peace. Poor analysis, tw. Your errors always redound towards our not winning the war. We've got your number, you anti-patriot.

Let's see 2007 - 1913 = 94 years since Taft showed good us what good Republican foreign policy looked like. Seriously dude, if you cannot see that Bush is a collosal Wilsonian level failure, you are hopeless.

I love how she's being crucified for voting for the (i.e. Bush's) war and no one is saying shit about the fact Bush started the whole thing, despite Scott Ritter's saying there wasn't a single iota of evidence that Iraq had WMDs.

She attracts more shit than flies, or something like that.

Come election time we'll be reading about how she masterminded the WTC attacks and the Iraq invasion. Regardless of her possible abilities as POTUS, she shouldn't run because she isn't likeable enough. I mean, folks just plain hate her.

This is true, but her job as Senator is to make sure Congress does its job as a co-equal branch. She failed to do her job in the Senate so she wants a promotion... I don't think so.

If we are to revisit this for another few years... causing me to vomit... let's put this into evidence

Mr Ritter's 1998 letter of resignation from UNSCOM

Doesn't matter what evidence you, Undertoad, or Cherrycoke put up. Bottom line is that Iran fed Bush and his cronies lies about Hussein's WMD program through Chalabi, and almost everyone in power fell for it. Iran won again without firing a shot, and now the US Gov't is acting sore by banging the war drums against Iran. This time the drums are meant with relative silence; no cheering for the Gov't.

Yes, and what a shame it is that you weren't there to explain it to them.

Whatever. Bush led the push into Iraq before Afghanistan was even taken care of. That the democrats went along with it does not excuse them.

The decision to invade Iraq was already made in August 2002. To protect the secrecy of that decision, all military decisions were removed from subordinate officiers; only made at the highest levels. A demand for information to justify that decision had started even earlier.

Meanwhile, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that implied Saddam was a threat in its executive summary, also was chock full of facts that said otherwise. As I understand it, Congressman read none of it other than a few Congressman who read only the five page executive summary. Appreciate what people do when they pretend to be partiotic rather than informed.

Don't fool yourself. Even the Democrats are only passively opposing war for an obvious reason. Notice how few Americans really oppose war. Yes, you now read complaints. So what? Many Americans still do not stand up for the American soldier. Most Americans still so approve of the George Jr as to not even ask one simple question: When do we go after bin Laden?

Do you need a benchmark? That question is it. Until you ask that question regularly, then you still support George Jr's "Mission Accomplished". Yes there is still, today, a lot of blame. How many noticed America is preparing to attack someone in the next few months? We are not done supporting George Jr - by acting naive and not asking the damning question.

You don't have to be uneducated to be a zealot/fanatic/ignorant in some ways. I think most that say they are creationists, really are not.

On that note, Hillary worries me, I do not really believe she is telling us what she believes/feels in her heart and mind. She tells us what she thinks we want to hear and will get us to give her what she wants.
I don't trust her as far as I can throw her. She is a power-monger.