What does Turkey have to do with the decision of our Sec. of DEfence to limit the number of troops used in Iraq? And, what is this with the obvious republican trash talkers. Nixon and Reagan were more closely related to the Bush Groups and the latest Bush propensity for with-holding the truth.

Hillary has had a severe memory loss when she states we didn’t have enough troops when we entered Iraq. Turkey had agreed to allow our troops to cross their country! However, when the time came the countrymen did not want us crossing so Turkey reneged on their promise. Things would have been a lot different had this not occurred. Hillary where is your memory? Trying to make points are we!

Cut Hillary some slack.  WAR is not her defining objective.  She has shown she is 100% behind improving access to healthcare for ALL Americans.  THAT should be the defining point on which you vote her up or down.  The reTHUGS kept her, and Bill, from achieving that great goal, but a new President Clinton (or even Senate Majority Leader Clinton) could go a long way in getting this thing done ... of course now that boooshie and chaingangster have spent the entire US Treasury (money laundering much of it into the pockets of their buddies) and indebted us for years to come, there may not be much anyone can do to make HEALTHCARE (the issue MOST Americans rate as #1, this aging baby boomer population) a reality.

Hillary Clinton is a completely consolidated ideological supporter of the US occupation of the Middle East. Her taunting of the hapless Rumsfeld should not obscure the fact that if elected president, she would likely follow a course more parallel to that of Richard Nixon than anything else. We shouldn’t be fooled into thinking that there is anyone with the Democrat label, except the marginalized folks like Cynthia McKinney or Dennis Kucinich that have any seriously alternative view.
How many anti-war candidates has the Dem party attempted to squash in primaries?

Sen. Clinton is pretty good at critizing others.  But I have never seen her solution to anything.  She never offers anything better than the status quo.  She’s getting old.  She needs to step down.

Hillary is not as bad as Lieberman, but on the
definining issue of her nascent career she chose
expediency over the right thing to do.  All the
evidence was there; we were not ‘fooled’ on Iraq,
especially someone in a position of power like her.
By continuing to vote funds for the war in Iraq she
has lost any hope of the progressive vote.  My prediction is that she will either realize that she cannot win and not run, or set up a campaign and run into the buzzsaw of the progressive vote.  Unlike Lieberman, republicans hate her more than progressives do.

“You underestimated the nature and strength of the insurgency, the sectarian violence, and the spread of Iranian influence.” Don’t tread to heavily on the issue of “Iranian influence” Hillary. You’re liable to push old Donny into giving the Iranians that WMD they’ve been working toward.

Don’t put it past GW and Donny to make Iran an impact crater! The electorate is gearing up and they are in dire need of a conclusive win somewhere in the world.

Despite the fact that Sen. Clinton has undermined the credibility that got her elected by mimicking that tone of her republican senate colleagues, she has given us a wonderful turn of phrase that hopefully will outlast this trade off with the Secretary of Defense.  In her envoi to Rumsfield she says, “Yes, we hear a lot of happy talk and rosy scenarios, but because of the Administration’s strategic blunders, and frankly the record of incompetence in executing, you are presiding over a failed policy. Given your track record, Secretary Rumsfeld, why should we believe your assurances now?” “Happy talk” what a perfect phrase to describe the simple-mindedness with which the Bush folks have been describing this disaster.  Perfectly said.

“The old Iraqi Army did indeed “melt away” and it is debatable whether Shiite conscripts could be dragged back to report under Sunni Baath officers.”

These were paid positions in a country with massive poverty and unemployment. Are you seriously suggesting that the so-called conscripts said (in unision) “Keep your money Americans! Don’t you dare try to keep me in this paid posiiton providing food for my family! I’d rather just sit in my house, er, if I had a house and slowly starve to death! Keep away from me with that money! I’ll kill you if you dare try to keep me in this position and giving me money to buy food and clothes for my family!”

Yeah. Right.

I agree with Aaitje ~ it is a relief, a pleasure, a joy, a delight to see a Democratic senator speak up. My hope is that others of lapdog congress will do the same.

Senator Clinton is pro-war but postures as a critic of bad planning and execution.  The old Iraqi Army did indeed “melt away” and it is debatable whether Shiite conscripts could be dragged back to report under Sunni Baath officers.  It was a “damned if you do or don’t” situation.  Hindsight still provides no 20x20 answer.

In truth, nothing would have prevented the emergence of Shiite theocratic domination or the consequent Sunni resistance, and the US would never have raised the million soldiers necessary to police the country indefinitely.  Watch her support a half-witted “peacekeeping” mission into the equally dubious thornbush of Lebanon.

What’s the matter Laura?  I think it’s refreshing to see a pol finally reverse course and speak the truth.  The majority of the country supported the war 3 years ago.  Times have changed and the truth has come out.  Why should Hillary (or anyone else) still support this?  We were lied to and you are determined to go down with the ship.  I suppose you’re anti-choice and a religious zealot too!

Yeah, good point.  You’re probably right about the Ned Lamont thing.

**************************************************
Comment #16553 by Laura on 8/03 at 10:38 pm

Hilary Clinton has backed Rumsfield’s war all along. The fact that she spoke this way (and the timing of her “toughness”, on the very day of the release of Connecticut poll numbers) only shows that Ned Lamont’s success has made her worried, as well it should.
**************************************************

That may well be true, Laura, but it was sooo nice to see a Democratic Senator bitch-slap Rumsfield so thoroughly!

With no e-voting machines in Connecticut, and Lamont opening with double digits against Joementum showing a sure win for the newcomer, other Democratic politicians will *finally* read the ‘writing on the wall’ and remember that it’s STILL “We the People"---something they’d--sadly--forgotten for too long.

If anything, it’s helped soothe the fear I had, that We the People were rendered powerless, and voiceless in Bush’s America.

Apparently, they’ve heard us once again--now we need to get those 158,000 ballots in Ca-50 San Diego district counted, since the use of Diebold machines in the Busby/Bilbray race to tally the ballots were illegal due to “sleepovers” of the machines with pollsters.

Hilary Clinton has backed Rumsfield’s war all along. The fact that she spoke this way (and the timing of her “toughness”, on the very day of the release of Connecticut poll numbers) only shows that Ned Lamont’s success has made her worried, as well it should.