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. ;)