A continuation of this war without withdrawing our troops is just a couninuation of a failed Bush policy. The Democrats who support this war might as well break camp and go back home. The American people have spoken. What part of no, does the Democrats not understand? The Republicans do not want to address the poor, the black , the economy of the middle class, or anything else except corporate tax write-offs, and how to exploit the entire Nation and our needy children for their own greed. Politicians you are soon going to be unemployed. Clinton scares me. She needs, to represent the American people and stand on her own and to get away from the Bush agenda.

Respectful discussion is nice for afternoon tea, BUT here in New England we have a habit of asking the tough questions and pointing out the on-the-job failures.

Hill-the-business-shill needs to explain her support for the war in detail.
She needs to tell US workers how her membership in the India Caucus, and her advocacy for unlimited H-1b visas helps them.
She needs to clear up her relationship with Walmart, and explain if she has lobbied for trade benefits in return for financial backing.
In short she must convince workers she is the Senator from New York, not the Lobbyist from Bombay, Guadalajara, or Beijing.

.A war with Iran would make the current conflict in Iraq pale by comparison, and would detrimentally impact the whole of America, not just certain demographics.  This is what Hilary voted for.

By Scott Ritter
Truthot.com
Thursday 27 September 2007
fact-based assessment. In the days and weeks that have since passed, two things have become clear: Neither Congress nor the American people (including the antiwar movement) have a plan or the gumption to confront President Bush in anything more than cosmetic fashion over the war in Iraq. The administration continues its march toward conflict with Iran unimpeded.
The bottom line is that the troop levels in Iraq keep expanding, as does the infrastructure of perpetual occupation. The Democrats in Congress are focused on winning the White House in 2008, not stopping a failed war, and as such they not only refuse to decisively confront the president on Iraq Here’s the danger: While the antiwar movement focuses its limited resources on trying to leverage real congressional opposition to the war in Iraq, which simply will not happen before the 2008 election, the Bush administration and its Democratic opponents will outflank the antiwar movement on the issue of Iran, pushing forward an aggressive agenda in the face of light or nonexistent opposition.
Of the two problems (the reality of Iraq, the potential of Iran), Iran is by far the more important. The war in Iraq isn’t going to expand tenfold overnight.  The United States continues to hold the Iranians prisoner, Their release any time soon is unlikely, given the impact a de facto admission that the Bush administration got it wrong would have on the overall case against Iran it is trying to build. The fate of Farhadi is likewise up in the air. None other than Kurdish President Jalal Talabani, a staunch pro-American, condemned the detention of Farhadi by U.S. military forces, noting that the Iranian was a well-known businessman who was in Iraq as part of an official trade delegation. Talabani heads. Such is the reality of modern Iraq.
But this reality is nowhere to be found in the White House. The president himself has led the charge, This attack, in which insurgents dressed in U.S. military uniforms, drove vehicles similar to those used by the U.S. military and sported U.S. identification documents and weapons, has been linked to Iran by many in the U.S., citing nothing more than the level of sophistication involved as proof.
From speculation to speculation, the case against the Quds Force by the Bush administration continues to lack anything in the way of substance. And yet the mythological Daqduq has become a launching platform for even graver speculation, fed by the media themselves, that the highest levels of leadership in Iran were aware of the activities of Daqduq and the Quds Force, and are thus somehow complicit in the violence. Not one shred of evidence was produced to sustain such serious accusations, and yet national media outlets such as The New York Times and The Washington Post both ran stories repeating these accusations. Politicians are formulating policy based upon such baseless accusations, and the American public continues to be manipulated into a predisposition for war with Iran largely because of such speculation. No one seems to pay attention to the fact that the U.S. military itself has subsequently contradicted its own briefings, noting in July 2007 that no persons had been captured by the United States that can provide a direct link between insurgents in Iraq and Iran. Again, in August of 2007, the U.S. military stated that it had yet to catch anyone smuggling weapons into Iraq from Iran.
A war with Iran would make the current conflict in Iraq pale by comparison, and would detrimentally impact the whole of America, not just certain demographics