Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 20, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


Loss of Rainforests Is Double Whammy Threat to Climate






Truthdig Bazaar more items

 
Report

Hillary’s Calculations Add Up to War

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Feb 20, 2007
Hillary Clinton
AP Photo / Dennis Cook

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., listens to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld testify before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2005.

By Robert Scheer

Let’s face it: No matter how much many of us who oppose the war in Iraq would also love to elect a female president, Hillary Clinton is not a peace candidate. She is an unrepentant hawk, à  la Joe Lieberman. She believed invading Iraq was a good idea, all available evidence to the contrary, and she has, once again, made it clear that she still does.

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast a vote [to authorize the war] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,” she said in New Hampshire last week, confusing contempt for antiwar Americans—now a majority—with the courage of her indefensible conviction that she bears no responsibility for the humanitarian, economic and military disaster our occupation has wrought.

As a candidate for ‘08, Hillary clearly calculates that her war chest, star power, gender and pro-choice positions will be sufficient for her to triumph in the primaries, while being “tough,” pro-military and “supporting our president” will secure her flank in the general election against those who would paint her as that horrible beast, “a liberal.”

A winning strategy? That remains to be seen. It certainly does not bode well for the future of the nation, however, should it be. Consider the parallel case of President Lyndon Johnson, who can be heard on tapes of his White House conversations ruminating that he never believed in the Vietnam War and pursued it only to deny Barry Goldwater and the Republicans a winning campaign issue.

In fact, whether out of such callous political calculations or sincere beliefs, mindless militarism has been a bipartisan majority position in Washington for a half-century, and counting. With the end of the Cold War, its acolytes went searching for a new enemy to serve as a foil. When one emerged, those with aspirations to the presidency fell in line quite easily.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt,” New York Sen. Clinton stated in her October 2002 speech when voting to authorize a war the White House had already decided to launch for bogus reasons, and which Clinton dutifully endorsed. “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members ... .”

That none of this was true is now airily dismissed by Clinton as the result of her being mislead by “false intelligence.” Yet Clinton had to be aware that the case for Saddam’s WMD and ties to al-Qaida was weak, when not obviously misrepresented. Surely she was in contact with the intelligence and diplomatic sources from her husband’s administration who were telling anyone who would listen that the Bush team was obsessed with invading Iraq.

Leaving aside the absurdity that Democratic senators such as Clinton and ‘04 presidential candidate John Kerry didn’t have the access and means to do the same basic fact-checking of Bush administration claims that independent journalists, intelligence analysts and published skeptics such as ex-arms inspector Scott Ritter undertook, how is that they could have ignored the historical evidence that occupying Iraq with the vague goal of “fostering democracy” was a phenomenally dangerous endeavor? Had Clinton caught the “fever” for invading Iraq that Secretary of State Colin Powell attributed to Vice President Dick Cheney?

If not, Clinton certainly forgot her role as a senator to balance the power of the president, instead blindly following his lead: “I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible,” she said. Yet, when the president clearly broke his word five months later, blindsiding the U.N. inspectors on the ground in Iraq who had found no evidence of WMD, Clinton simply cheered him on.

No, Congress failed to take seriously the obligation built into its constitutionally mandated exclusive power to declare war, and Sen. Clinton’s refusal to admit that is not a minor issue. This paired with her strident support, ever since the invasion of Iraq, for a huge increase in the standing army to fight other wars, including a possible confrontation with Iran, shows a fondness in Clinton for war and bullying adventurism that vastly overshadows her sensible stances on many domestic issues. As Barry Goldwater supporters stated in kicking off the Republican revolution, what we need is a choice, not an echo.

Click here to check out Robert Scheer’s book,
“The Great American Stickup: How Reagan Republicans and Clinton Democrats Enriched Wall Street While Mugging Main Street.”


Keep up with Robert Scheer’s latest columns, interviews, tour dates and more at www.truthdig.com/robert_scheer.



Get truth delivered to
your inbox every week.

Previous item: Danny Goldberg on Antiwar Artistry

Next item: The Perils of Cyberbaggage



New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By TAO Walker, September 18, 2007 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment

No one here belongs to any “tribes” (d.alon #62188), those artificial constructs being an invention of the civilized peoples, in their desperate need to reinforce their flimsy illusions of “superiority.”  There aren’t any “chiefs” here either.

Of course there are among us Persons especially respected for their generosity or wisdom or courage or memories or any number of qualities that make us altogether better able to fulfill our given place in our Mother Earth’s and LifeHerownself’s natural scheme of things.  Nobody here presumes on such recognition, however, to tell anybody else what to do.

So, if d.alon is looking for “leaders” and “followers,” s/he might as well remain in the “global” feedlot, which is indeed full of ‘em….for all the good it’s doing the the tame two-legged livestock, here in these latter days.

HokaHey!

Report this

By Skruff, April 6, 2007 at 1:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

#62399 by Ernest Canning on 4/05 at 6:15 pm


“How did an article on whether Hillary Clinton’s calculations add up to war wind up with an endless diaglogue between Hondo, d.alon, Tao Walker and Skruff on ‘illusions of individuality?’”

If you read the progression (whole thread) you would see…. BUT to make it short, it seems that attacking other posters tends to change and move the discussion to a different level (and subject)

even shorter….we were manipulated.

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, April 6, 2007 at 1:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It’s the nature of these threads, Ernest. When they’re fresh and new, people comment on the topic at hand. As they get older and stale, the persistent chatterers tend to reply to each other, and other people move onto something different. Just like at a party, not everyone stands in the same spot talking about the same thing.

Report this

By Ernest Canning, April 5, 2007 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

How did an article on whether Hillary Clinton’s calculations add up to war wind up with an endless diaglogue between Hondo, d.alon, Tao Walker and Skruff on “illusions of individuality?”

Report this

By d.alon, April 4, 2007 at 3:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tao Walker,
Thank you, and I appreciate your purity of vision.  One aspect to your philosophy that puzzles me though (and perhaps I misunderstand), is that ALL mankind - from Neandertal to modern day man - has maintained some semblance of a heirarchical structure.  To put it simply - a cheif to every tribe.  And man is and was a communal and immitative animal by nature - there will always be the few natural leaders and many followers. Groups of people working together in support of the common good. Granted, world economics is a snowball that’s been gaining mass and momentum for some time, and will inevitably hit the bottom. But nevertheless, it seems to me that civilization is nothing more than a natural outgrowth of tribalism.

Report this

By TAO Walker, March 21, 2007 at 1:13 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Something d.alon (#58807) might notice right away here among us free wild natural human beings is the total absence of pyramid schemes and other hierarchical contraptions of any kind….something no civilization ever known has been able even to exist (nevermind operate) without.  The civilizing process itself seems to be the archetype, in fact, for all the subordinate pecking-orders within its suffocating confines.

Another “feature” is that us Indians learned long ago the wisdom, and have ever since enjoyed the considerable benefits, of travelling light.  The incidental furnishings of our living arrangement are everywhere available, even if of somewhat different shapes and content from time-to-time and place-to-place.  So there’s no need to haul a bunch of stuff laboriously along with us as we go singing and dancing and playing on our way.  Those inclined to load-up with a lot of personal “possessions” inevitably find they’re always having to choose between the increasingly unbearable onus of “property” and the just plain pure fun of fulfilling, with integrity, our given organic function here.  The excess baggage inevitably gets jettisoned much sooner than later.

We can live this way, and live fully and well, by virtue of not being caught in the seductive illusion of “individuality.”  We are persons by nature, but we know and appreciate the fact we come into life here only as members of an already up-and-running living arrangement that has not merely engendered us, but without which we aren’t a viable form of Life here at all.  The human element in this Great Hoop of Life that welcomes us in is of course but a relatively small part of the whole…..no more nor any less vital to the health of the whole than anyone and everyone of all our relations.

Life for us, as persons and as a people, as Two-leggeds among the children of our Mother Earth and SunFather, as natural born belongers-in (and -TO) the Living Universe, is growing from circle to circle….each seemingly “bigger” from one way of looking at it, but also more and more “distilled” to its essence looked at another way.

Our human shape begins as a tiny roundness, within the round belly of our mother, inside the circle of her lodge, set in the circle of all the lodges of all the mothers of her tiyoshpaye….which has in-turn a place in the circle of her band within that of her nation within that of all the nations of Turtle Island within that of all the islands of the Earth within that of SunFathers’ family of worlds within that of all the Star Families of our Great Nourishing Way Star Nation within that of the all-but innumerable living star islands “populating” this one living Universe in an Omniverse of living Universes.  Like the Old Woman told the frustrated anthropologists seeking “closure”....“Sorry, but I have to tell you that it’s Turtles all the way down.”

So the rule of fear to which all the civilized peoples are so hideously subject holds no sway here.  No one is ever “lost” or thrown-away.  All are free to do the dance-steps and hit the notes, high or low or in-between, that Life Herownself expresses through them in her own endless balancing act.

This old Indian hopes d.alon can get, from this glimpse, some idea of what s/he is missing, stuck there in that virtual world-o-hurt called the “global” civilization.  All of our domesticated brothers and sisters are welcome to rejoin us here in The Wilderness anytime at all.

HokaHey!

Report this

By d.alon, March 15, 2007 at 12:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Skruff - I think the system I am referring to is inclusive of the one as you are thinking about.  “Not a “constant” to me… If we are all cogs in the system, why does it break down so often?  No, it is my belief that some are cogs, and some are monkey-wrenches. When one throws a monkey wrench into cogs….they break.”  The system you are speaking to must be predicated upon personal preferences and expectations.  I am speaking of a universal system of creation, preservation, and dissolution, the material and immaterial, and the human condition therein. Certainly you can’t argue that we are not a cog in that system. It never breaks down, just changes.

Tao Walker - You have sparked my interest.  I am curious as to what mankind’s state of being would look and feel like in the world you envision.  You are correct that I have never lived outside of civilization, and therefore do not have the benefit of experience to draw upon for comparison.

Report this

By Skruff, March 13, 2007 at 12:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Comment #57430 by d.alon on 3/08 at 2:35 pm claims:


“We’re all individuals every bit as much as we are communal animals Tao Walker.  Cogs in a system.  No matter what form the system takes as a result of human attitudes and philosophies, that much is constant.”

Not a “constant” to me… If we are all cogs (I wrote CONS by an accident….think it may have been freudian?)in the system, why does it break down so often?  No, it is my belief that some are cogs, and some are monkey-wrenches. When one throws a monkey wrench into cogs….they break. any union auto plant worker knows this WITHOUT a college degree. 

(I’ve always wondered, when contemplating the cog idea in the past,what this many-cogged machine does, and who it serves if we are all a part of it???)

Report this

By TAO Walker, March 13, 2007 at 12:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

d.alon (#57430) makes some assumptions about the nature and origins and purposes of civilization this Indian clearly doesn’t share.  S/he also makes the mistake, common among the civilized breeds, of confusing “individuals” with persons.  The former are in actual observable fact nothing but products of the civilizing process itself, while the latter do occur freely and spontaneously in Nature.  It is perfectly accurate to describe “individuals” as civilization’s cheap imitation plastic substitute for the organic persons found in Nature.

 
It seems a pretty safe bet, based on d.alon’s comments here, that he/she (whatever her/his “...proximity to nature…”) has no actual experience at all outside the confines of civilization, and thus no knowledge, really, of what might or might not be available there….actually, HERE.  So any conclusions s/he offers about either civilization or us Indians’ free wild natural living arrangement must at best be only partially informed….and is probably grotesquely dis-informed by the instigators and wannabe beneficiaries of that captivating contraption d.alon and his/her fella and gal inmates are systematically mis-led to believe is entirely their own idea, construction, and most important project.

Other observers over the years have noticed that human beings, to be whole and healthy, must be free and wild….pretty much like every other kind of living thing here.  Domesticated humans can only exist, like those of our relatives that’ve been subjected to the same degradation by tame two-leggeds, as more-or-less diseased livestock….or “pets.”  So your choice does indeed come down to one between the organic wholeness of your native humanity and an artificially contrived and partly self-inflicted condition perhaps briefly more “comfortable,” but inevitably and brutally (and quite pre-maturely) terminal….because that is after all the entire purpose and programmed fate of factory-farmed foodstuffs.  If d.alon can stay “stoic” (clear to the bitter end) in the face of that prospect, then s/he’s not as good a wo/man as he/she could be….which may be pitiful but is hardly “hate”-ful.

If d.alon has commented elsewhere and awhile back (and in a similar vein) as just plain “alon,” s/he might re-visit that exchange (appended to an article called “Patreus…Is Bagdad Burning?”) for a more comprehensive look at where this old Indian is coming to you from.  Meantime, take it from one who lives here, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever “private” on the Rez, where we just can’t help but know everything there is to know about one another.  We avoid bloodshed (much of the time, anyway) by observing a scrupulous respect for each others’ persons.

“Individuals,” on the other hand, tend to be sort of invisible here, so generally gravitate to the virtual world, which is always “....just a shot away.”

HokaHey!

Report this

By d.alon, March 8, 2007 at 3:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Tao Walker,

In this thread I’ve been labeled a liberal (Hondo) and an individualist (Tao Walker).  Slightly ironic, don’t you think?  And I would assume the liberal label stems from my expressed opposition to the policies of the current US administration, and the individualist label is a result of recognizing the existence of private property.  Or is it a result of choosing to live in closer proximity to nature than many others in the US? 

We’re all individuals every bit as much as we are communal animals Tao Walker.  Cogs in a system.  No matter what form the system takes as a result of human attitudes and philosophies, that much is constant.  Throughout history civilizations have chosen to tip the scale in one direction or another, and to varying degrees in the form of one particular governmental structure or another.  Nature, with its cures, its nourishment, its boundless creative powers, and abundant beauty, of which we are part and parcel, must be cherished and respected as it is as much a part of us all as are the noses on our faces.  But that doesn’t mean that all of humanity’s contributions to one another and their ability to do so freely (but responsibly) must be negated.  Yes, this is where we disagree my friend:  “Rights,” “privileges,” and “powers” are only artifacts of “civilization.” They don’t occur in Nature.  Neither, of course, do human “individuals.”  Oh yes they do! And everything that mankind does, thinks, was and is, is in fact natural as all we are is precluded in our collective and respective existences by nature.
 
The fact is, the truth always lies in that thin belt in the middle between two extremities. 

Must we choose civilization or the absence thereof? No. 

Are we first individuals, or are we first a community?  Take your pick!  You’re not wrong either way, because one and the other are the same, just different poles of our species’ being. 

Regardless, don’t hate me for my stoicism.  I just play a part in the drama in which I was cast.  And sometimes I like to write to my own lines.  Unfortunately though, the director has final say because its his baby. 

And you seem so certain we are all in for certain doom.  Well, I hope you are wrong.  But in any case, all the freedom in the universe can be found within, and in death, whenever its time to part the world, I’ll go where all other once-living things go.  So you can’t worry me with your apocalyptic premonitions.  In the mean time I will make the most of the life with which I have been graced in the time that I have in this world. Oh and by the way, even you consistently recognize that private property exists.  You live on “the reservation” right?

Report this

By TAO Walker, March 7, 2007 at 12:59 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Well, as long as d.alon (#56383) is happy doing his/her thing, all must be right with her/his own little world.  Meantime, though, millions’ve already been thrown overboard (with billions more soon to follow), which d.alon (who is definitely somewhere down that list of expendables, and probably not nearly as far down it, either, as s/he might like to believe while happily hoeing the corn) seems to concede.

The individualists’ delusions of “self-sufficiency” couldn’t be better illustrated than they are in d.alon’s latest comment here.  To indulge in them, though, one is compelled to also buy-into to the lunatic notion that any person (living or artificial) can actually “own” the land.  In fact, everybody in America can own only a revocable “right” to pay the county sheriff to protect their occupation of a designated plot, using the police power of the state, if necessary, to exclude others not welcome by the temporary taxpaying occupant.

In the actual living arrangement there is nothing whatsoever to ownership except total responsibility.  “Rights,” “privileges,” and “powers” are only artifacts of “civilization.”  They don’t occur in Nature.  Neither, of course, do human “individuals.” 

Most Americans today are slap-happily “crapping” in their drinking water, one way and another.  This is no doubt evidence of something to do with the condition their condition is in, but this old Indian is pretty sure it is not a testimony to anything even remotely resembling native intelligence. 

Reflexively projecting the insanity rampant in the civilized world onto our free wild natural living arrangement might give cold comfort to those too terrorized to risk escaping from their increasingly suffocating confinement, but it won’t do a thing to stop the process from reaching its immanent dead-end.  Five bucks to some homeless person is a decent gesture, maybe, but remember, your tormentors have hung that refugee out there as a warning to you that there but for the state-sponsored “privilege of property ownership” go you. 

d.alon sure got that message.  It’s not lost on most of the rest of theamericanpeople, either, who still believe they have something left to lose besides their wannabe owners.

HokaHey!

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, March 5, 2007 at 5:56 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ooooh, Hee-Haw has a long memory! Hondo hasn’t called any Canadian grandmothers (Eleanore) a “slut” since last September…

Report this

By Hee-Haw, March 5, 2007 at 3:51 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo,

Didn’t you once promise to never post on truthdig again if the democrats took control of either house?

Not that we want you to go away.  You do us valuable service reminding us how hateful you christian conservatives really are…you know, like calling other forum contributers “sluts.”

Please continue to post your comments so the rest of us sane people can keep an eye on the direction of your fascist movement.

Report this

By Liz, March 5, 2007 at 12:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ve been a registered Dem for more than 20 years but won’t support Hillary because she’s still standing behind her man, anticipating that support for him will shoo her into the WH. Not from this babe. Don’t compare her with Margaret Thatcher. Mrs.  Thatcher did not have an obvious “Mr. Thatcher” working for her as a PR front man. She was intelligent, independent, and tough.

Report this

By d.alon, March 2, 2007 at 3:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo & Tao:

You both make me laugh (in a light-hearted way, of course).  Hondo…All I’m saying is that as far as we’re told, Clinton and Gore supported the invasion, and other intelligence services around the world supposedly believed Iraq had a WMD program.  Is it true?  I don’t know.  But I do know that invading Iraq had nothing to do with that.  And as far as Sadaam using weapons on us?  I don’t believe that anyone anywhere in any government agency believed that.  Who says I’m a liberal anyway?  I hold no allegiance to any party’s agenda - economically or socially.  I just try to see the light through the smoke and vote for who’s gonna do the least harm to the interests of myself and those I care about.

Tao Walker, I’m not refuting what you’re saying at all.  I’m agreeing with you, at least to the point that there is a concerted effort to enslave the majority of the world - and, in fact, in many, many ways its already been achieved.  But the fact is, that all the land is owned by someone, and no matter how much of an attitudinal change I undergo, stepping outside of the system completely will…well lets just say, I just gave a five bill to someone who did (willingly or not I don’t know).

But you are right, it certainly wouldn’t be easy!  In fact, I don’t know if roaming the range like the buffalo, crapping where I stand, and warring with the nearest tribe over land to farm is quite my cup of tea either (obviously the “neo-con equivalent mind-set” tribe would invade my peace-loving commune, rape and kill the women and enslave me and my brothers so that I would do their farming for them, lol).  I already grow all my own food, and as long as I can create in the manner of my choosing, I’m happy. 

But I certainly care about the state of the world I live in, and would like to see the most options possible available to as many people as possible so that they may fulfill their life with the work they believe is the best suited for whatever talent they choose to develop.

Report this

By Skruff, March 2, 2007 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo, I have told you several times that the Clinton administration was no better than Bush as far as “We the people” fared.  Clinton and his wife sold us out for money and power just as Bush has done.

AND of course Saddam (once) had weapons of mass destruction….we gave them to him….and turned away when he used them on his own people.

I always remind Bush critics that if we didn’t have Bush, we’d have someone doing EXACTLY the same thing, cause the people we see running the country are not the folks REALLY running things.

Puppets…the lot of them…. Bush isn’t the problem…he’s the result of a lax and lazy population.

Report this

By Hondo, March 1, 2007 at 6:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

d.alon, you are amazing! Did everybody participating in this discussion see the comment (#56142)? d.alon says that I am right about Clinton, Gore, and the rest of that administration agreeing that Sadaam had WMD and was prepared to use them against the U.S. Praise the Lord! I finally accomplished my goal! I got one liberal to see the light! My work here is done! I think I’ll go open a refreshing Leinenkugel and celebrate!

Report this

By TAO Walker, March 1, 2007 at 4:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Things….” are already “....getting way worse even faster….,” (d.alon, #56142).  And it only says, in big scary red letters, “WELDED SHUT” on those “doors” that don’t even exist anyway, except in the state-sponsored terror-stricken perceptions that are all there is trapping the domesticated peoples aboard the hell-bent express.

Granted, there is certainly no painless or easy way “....to get off the train.”  It’ll take some real attitudinal changes and substantial material sacrifices.  d.alon, and others in the same (at least partly self-inflicted) predicament, still have a chance to voluntarily MAKE those sacrifices….before “things” reach their bitter end, which “....they inevitably will,” and any hapless passengers still clinging fearfully to their on-board illusions BECOME the ultimate sacrifices.

So the “solution” really is to get together with family, friends, and neighbors (where you live right now) and jump!  Odds are very few of you are so high-up in the pyramid-scheme pecking-order that you’re more than inches from the ground anyway….and “speed” is relative, as Einstein “proved” and us free wild natural human beings have known all along.

d.alon illustrates this Indian’s “point,” even in trying to refute it.  Because if all this is already so “obvious” it’d be equally so that the whole damned death-trap in which our domesticated relatives have gotten their selves caught is nothing but make-believe….a clever illusion that collapses the second you step outside its suffocating confines.  You have to actually take that step, though.  Just claiming you know it’s there simply won’t serve.  That’s why us Indians always say….

HokaHey!

Report this

By d.alon, March 1, 2007 at 11:27 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo,

There is no need to respond to that portion of your comments.  Its true.  The issue is larger than partisan hackery.  Hopefully you will see that the government is applying the same divide and rule strategy here at home that they are in the middle east.

Tao Walker,

My scope is not narrow.  What you “point out” is obvious and has been a work in progress for a long time.  Unfortunately, I’m not smart enough to come up with a solution to get off the train.  The doors are all welded shut.  Best I can do is help to work on the current state of affairs and hope that enough people will see through the smoke and prevent things from getting way worse even faster than they inevitably will.

Report this

By HeadlessHessian, February 28, 2007 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I agree with Lefty. period!

Report this

By Jon B, February 27, 2007 at 10:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When a woman doesn’t know how to zip her spouse’s pants, that woman is not suitable to run a country.

Report this

By TAO Walker, February 27, 2007 at 7:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From here on the Rez the liberals and conservatives all look to be confined together “....in a fantasy world.” (Hondo #55640) Most of ‘em like to think of it as civilization, even though domestication is a lot more accurate and honest….calling-up as it does images of industrially abused livestock.

This old Indian freely acknowledges that the confinees are programmed to believe there is nothing of any real value, nor anybody worth listening to, even existing outside the artificial limits of their smothering captivity….which they are also programmed to mistake for actual organic freedom.  So their petty squabbles over incipient garbage and make-believe notions loom larger than Life Herownself, in their intentionally growth-stunted perceptions.

Meantime, their tormentors enjoy easy pickings among nearly six billion tame two-leggeds who are kept blissfully oblivious to both their own degraded condition and the shadowy presence of those others who introduced the process here ten thousand years ago and have been slap-happily exploiting its subject populations ever since.  No wonder MADness is rampant and depression epidemic among most especially those who are serving their womb-to-tomb sentences in the over-developed nation/states of the civilized virtual world.

That world is becoming everyday more irreversibly defined by the internecine idiocy its victims and perpetrators alike try to glorify and justify by calling it WAR.  It is unfortunate (Hondo and d.alon say “sad”) these inmates, no matter the truly trivial differences in their made-up beliefs, have had their once fertile and free roaming human imaginations trapped and constricted along with their bodies and their minds.  Otherwise it’d be not merely possible but inevitable that they would realize at least a few of their brothers and sisters have been able to avoid capture, and so have a much more complete sense of just how much greater, than it appears from within the exploitive system, the real “big picture” actually is.

Us free wild natural human beings have been here all along, though….living proof the tormentors’ ambitions are impossible of realization on Earth.  These cosmic imbeciles themselves have come finally to see this, and so are now trying desperately to engineer some kind of escape mechanism, before their ruthless scheme self-destructs.  Of course the condition their own condition is in leaves them totally dependent on their purposely handicapped human slaves to build and launch any such vessels.

Talk about being too smart for your own good, eh?

HokaHey!

Report this

By Free California, February 27, 2007 at 2:43 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A Hillary Democratic presidential campaign will be celebrated by the fascist right, the Republicans and the war mongers.  She can’t win the liberal vote, she can’t win the election, it will be a slam dunk for whatever incompetent and vile candidate the Republicans put forward.

This continent of North America will only be saved from itself once the States assert their independence and stop paying into the national treasury which has become nothing but a slop trough for the wealthy war industrialists.

The United States is going to go the way of all oppressive colonial powers.  California, and presumably other states, cannot sustain the burden of Washington DC’s endless wars and self destructive domestic policies.

Us out of California.  Now.

Report this

By Lefty, February 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary Clinton is not my 1st, 2nd or 3rd choice for President.  BUT SHE’S LIGHT YEARS AHEAD OF THAT P.O.S. BUSH, AND ANY OF THE CURRENT CROP OF REPUBLICAN PIMPS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

Report this

By Lil Mamzer, February 27, 2007 at 12:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

So much fear and loathing of Jews on this website, as evidenced by the paranoid comments about AIPAC, Israel, and all that nasty Jewish influence.

Jews, Jews, Jews.

Always a problem, never a solution.

What’s a good lefty Democrat to do?

Report this

By Hondo, February 27, 2007 at 7:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m sad too, d .alon. I’m sad that you chose not to speak to the easily-verifiable facts I presented in my comment. I’m sad that you chose instead to demonize me. I’m sad that liberals are incapable of dealing with reality. I’m sad that, as of yet, I haven’t found one single liberal on this thread to respond to the fact that a former president, a former vice president, and numerous former national security advisors all believed that Sadamm had stockpiles of WMD—-all before Bush became president. I’m sad that liberals live in a fantasy world.

Report this

By kagaka, February 27, 2007 at 3:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo.  Uh, me thinks thee doth protest too much.  As this recent article on Gore’s Sept. 2002 speech to the Commonwealth club of San Francisco points out.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2007/022507.html

Thanks to revelations about the organized program of disinformation and innuendo concerning WMDs in Iraq, Saddam’s links to Al Qaeda, and the threat to London, New York and elsewhere, what people believed in 2002/3 is now about as relevant as what theologians thought about the central position of the earth in the universe before Kepler’s proofs of the Copernican system were widely published in the early 17th century.

My 12 year old nephew engages in the game of sowing differends.  One common one is to poison the legitimacy of your interlocutor by claiming they are too young to debate the subject at hand.

Report this

By kevin99999, February 26, 2007 at 11:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast a vote [to authorize the war] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,”

This is reasonable proposition. She did not, as paraphrased by Robert Sheerer, for whom I have great respect and admiration, that if you are against the war, vote for someone else.

Report this

By d.alon, February 26, 2007 at 7:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m convinced “Hondo” is Ann Coulter -  incapable of intelligently debating or discussing an issue without stuffing the opponent into the narrow framework that the label in his/her head comrehends the label to be.  Sad that there are people like this.

Report this

By Michael Kwiatkowski, February 26, 2007 at 6:17 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

>>Comment #54907 by Sue on 2/22 at 12:44 pm

Mike, Hillary has said her “yes” vote on the war was a mistake and she takes responsibilty for it, but she don’t feel the need to apologize for something she felt was the right thing to do at the time. That is not being weak. She’s standing her ground. Sticking by what she thought right at the time. To the contrary it shows strength and conviction for her beliefs, on her part not to fold and shy away from those who are trying their hardest to make her do so. She as much said so by telling all unhappy about her approach that there are “other choices” to choose from.
I see her not looking back, but moving forward in trying to correct a mistake made in the past. And that’s the picture we all should be concerned about no matter who the candidate.<<
Funny, but I have yet to hear Mrs. Clinton offer even a half-hearted apology for casting a vote that HAS GOTTEN PEOPLE KILLED.  The woman is not being consistent in her vote on Iraq.  Unlike Edwards and Kerry, who recognize the need to at least appear remorseful for having cast their ‘aye’ votes, Clinton insists on passing all the blame on Shrubya for deceiving Congress.  Granted, that’s exactly what he did.  But that does not excuse the ‘aye’ vote of anyone who voted to authorize war against Iraq.  There were people in Congress, both the House and the Senate, who saw the same cooked intel Clinton and the others did yet voted ‘nay.’  They knew full well they were being lied to, that the case for war was not strong at all.  For Clinton or anyone else to not take responsibility for his or her own part in a war that has resulted in so much death and destruction, even if that part came about as the result of deception by others, just is more of the same bullshit passing of the buck that Bush has been doing.  No one wants another Shrubya in the White House.  THAT is the point you keep missing.  And for Clinton to be so flippant in dismissing the concerns of people who want to know that a prospective president of the United States can actually accept responsibility for mistakes…that is another sign this person is not fit to be president.  I’m voting for Kucinich.  He at least had the sense and the conscience to vote against the resolution.

Report this

By John, February 25, 2007 at 6:09 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As you liberals and liberal democracts continue to shoot one another in the foot…..what have you done to end the war.  The last Congressional election was clearly a vote for ending the war and its the platform you Dems. ran on…..name one thing you have done to end the war and one thing you have done to send BUSH a message to change his policy…..YOU HAVE FAILED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND YOU LIED WHEN YOU SAID YOU WOULD END THE WAR!

Report this

By John Hanks, February 25, 2007 at 7:42 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You don’t have to be anti-semitic to hate the control that Zionists and Israel have over this country’s policies, candidates, media and public discourse.  Hillary and Lieberman are both in the pockets of AIPAC and they are willing to offer up American lives for Israel’s goofy interests.  Half of the Neocons are Zionists who collaborated with Israeli generals to bring about our current catastrophe.  If we get rid of the money subversion, we can get rid of all the “foreign” influences including the moonies, the Saudis, etc.

Report this

By Robert, February 25, 2007 at 6:29 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“MUST VIEW VIDEO TESTIMONY OF U.S. DR. DAHLIA WASFI EXPOSING FRAUD & MISERY OF BUSH/OLMERT/BLAIR OCCUPIED IRAQ, COVERS ALL ASPECTS.”


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELjgVq6GtPA

Report this

By rabblerowzer, February 25, 2007 at 5:11 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Fear and hate-mongering for profit.

Since World War II, the Military Industrial Complex has been the engine that powers the US economy. When the war ended, we could have could have changed our national priorities and invested our great wealth in programs to enhance our educational system, infrastructure and to improve the living standards for all Americans. That didn’t happen because our political leaders chose instead to protect the interests of those who own or profit from the MIC.

All government contractors profit handsomely from government contracts because they all over charge the government for products and services at prices many times more than they can in the private sector. That’s called pork and all politicians do it with little restraint or regard for oversight or national interest to glean campaign contributions and votes. Defense contractors on the other hand are better described as the “Pheasant under Glass” contractors. When it comes to “National Defense,” there are no restraints on spending, no oversight, and no penalties for outrageous corruption.

The Military Industrial Complex invented the Cold War and every war since as a means to maintain and enhance their profits in perpetuity. Both political parties conspired in this fraud, but Democrats do occasionally throw scraps to the people, which Republicans furiously oppose. Republicans are the Military Industrial Complex, with Democrats acting not as junior partners, but merely as midlevel associates.

That’s where we are now and everyone knows it.

Report this

By PatrickHenry, February 24, 2007 at 6:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

AIPAC, JCPA, ADL, AEI, B-B, GIYUS, etc,  how many lobby’s can a country/religion have? Especially in proportion to the population.

Report this

By Bukko in Australia, February 24, 2007 at 5:33 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Moni: You wrote that Australia is reducing its troop committment in Iraq. That, unfortunately, is 180 degrees from the truth.

Crime Minister John Howard, ever the arse-licker to his colonial masters, is sending 70 MORE troops to the hellhole. They will be “trainers” (not the running-shoe sort), and Oz’s Diggers have so far stayed so far from anything resembling combat that they have not suffered one combat death. (One bloke did manage to shoot himself through the head skylarking with his rifle in barracks, and another died as a passenger when a plane full of Brits crashed.) Howard’s move is unpopular with the populace here, and I hope it will help sink him in the Commonwealth election scheduled this year.

As for the rest of you responding to Hondo, take my advice: DON’T BOTHER. No one could reason with the cultists who drank the poisoned Kool-Aide at Jim Jones’ camp in 1978, and no one can talk sense to a dedicated Cheney Death Cultist either.

Hondo is a disciple of Rush Limbaugh. He chants the praises of that drug-addled draft-dodger on his blog, which can be found at ChristianConservatives.blogspot.com He claims to be a Christian, but he writes posts saying that Iran should be bombed until it resembles a parking lot. Must be a follower of Genocide Jesus, who said “Bring the little children unto the grave.”

Hondo pops up on threads every few months to irritate people. I think he does it to get traffic at his blog, which never gets any comments to its puerile posts except from outraged liberals. He responds to arguments on TruthDig with the same trite phrases: “I have PROVED with FACTS that you SOCIALIST LIBERALS are WACKY and out of touch with REALITY.” Reply if you must, but you’re blowing hot air into an empty skull.

Report this

By Bluestocking, February 24, 2007 at 8:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m of the opinion that Hillary made this statement because she believes that it will help her campaign—but I think it will backfire on her.  In order to avoid a repeat of the 2000 and 2004 elections, one party or the other needs to choose a nominee whose moderate views can potentially attract voters from the opposing party. Would Clinton have made it to the White House without the “Clinton Republicans”?  Doubtful. Despite her efforts at a hawkish, “Republican-lite” stance, Hillary is not moderate enough to attract Republican voters (many of whom continue to absolutely despise her just as much if not more than they did her husband)—and this same stance is quite likely to drive away more than a few Democratic voters who may be inclined to vote Green as a protest or possibly even to vote Republican if the nominee were truly a moderate (even though this seems unlikely). Then again, if she really wants to commit political suicide, that’s her affair.

Another advantage that I see in the Democratic Party choosing a moderate candidate is that if there is to be any hope whatsoever of healing the political divide in this country (which Bush admittedly did not start but which he has greatly exacerbated), then this will probably only be accomplished by a moderate.  Again, Hillary is not that person.  I’m not entirely certain who is (if indeed there is anyone) yet, but I know who isn’t—and Hillary is one who isn’t.

Report this

By DSmith, February 24, 2007 at 5:53 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m glad to read so many of the posters are picking up on the fact that Hillary is bought and paid for by the warmongering Zionist over at AIPAC. As one French politician said,“How can one shitty little country (Israel)be behind so much trouble in the world today?”

Remember when Bubba was handing out pardons, one of the pardons went to a Jewish group who lived in their own enclave in upstate New York. Several of their leaders were in jail for bilking the US government of funds meant to build schools in their community.

Hillary convinced Bill to pardon these criminals in order to strenthgen her hand with the Zionist here in America and in Israel.Don’t forget about Marc Rich who also got a pardon by giving large sums to Clinton’s mobile home looking library.

My problem with Israeli lobbying groups, AIPAC and AEI, is that they are the only ones promoting war.

Report this

By kath cantarella, February 23, 2007 at 11:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

from comment #54691 by Doug Tarnopol:

“We can’t “shop” for a “leader;” we must organize from below to pressure the leadership (such as it is) to respond. This is possible. So, stop reading this and get out there! Waiting for a white knight is childish and lazy.” (end of quote)

I just thought that was worth re-posting. OOOOKAAAYYYY, takin’ my big nose home now. Good luck to good people, and

Peace.

Report this

By kath cantarella, February 23, 2007 at 10:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Maybe i’m stupid but i’ve always gotten the impresson that Hilary is very anti-war. Be careful you guys—if she is your strongest-polling candidate don’t cut her down and wind up with a true Republican in the White House. If she’s your strongest it’s probably because she’s riding the center right now. We can take it for granted she knows how to play the game.
Where’s Al Gore? Is he going to run? How would he poll? (I confess that i like this guy)

Report this

By Jeff Badura, February 23, 2007 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

wow a hundred and ten comments ??? libs eat there young !!! ha ha ha ha   Dem’s are going to beat the hell out of each other for the next 16 months !!

illgramaticus knee o’kaun

Report this

By Hondo, February 23, 2007 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Doug, what is it about reality that you don’t understand? Bill Clinton, the Commander-In-Chief of the United States military, and Al Gore, his Vice President, BOTH said that Iraq had WMD, that Sadaam was a threat to use them against us, and that the U.S. had a responsibility to take him out. What part of that do you not understand? Do you have a mental disorder that prevents you from understanding that very simple fact? I swear, a conversation with a liberal is like talking to a 2-year old!

Report this

By Doug Tarnopol, February 23, 2007 at 7:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Re: Comment #54870 by Hondo

Well, last I checked, lying, murder, and profiteering were not high on Jesus’ list of ethical behaviors. You may be experiencing coginitive dissonance given your professed ethical views and the policies you supported, especially if Fox was your main source of information (but the New York Times was just as bad in the run-up to the war).

But, no, not EVERYONE was wrong. With the information known at the time, if one was not naive and took being an informed citizen seriously, war with Iraq was neither necessary nor inevitable. In fact, most of the world’s people, including some of the largest demonstrations in many nation’s history, were dead set against the war, for reasons too obvious to state. That anyone was convinced by Powell’s performance at the UN is testimony to the malleability of judgment through fear and revenge. Not to mention that there was plenty of mainstream-media dissension from people who knew, like Ritter, Joe Wilson, and a host of scientists who know what aluminum tubes used in reactors look like. This, too, was in the NYT, but one had to actually read past A1 and down to the lower paragraphs.

Do yourself a favor and do a LEXIS/NEXIS search and see what you missed. It’d be instructive.

Anyway, now that you’ve lost your innocence, perhaps you can do the right thing vis-a-vis saber-rattling toward Iran.

Or you can continue trolling, and carrying water for Hillary Clinton. Exculpating her is a epiphenomenal: the real phenomenon is exculpating yourself.

Report this

By Terry in SC, February 23, 2007 at 5:03 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Marie2 and Sylvia Barksdale Morovitz have got to be kidding; Hillary Clinton, Obama Barack, Al Gore, John Edwards would make a Good President/Vice President combination?!?
Are we asking them to run the Kennel Club or our Nation?!? If they are in charge of ‘dumb’ animals at teh local pound…......yes they are ‘excellent’ candidates; if we are asking for competent leaders to be the mouthpiece of a Nation and make decisions affecting millions…...they are the last names that need be spoken.
Face it they can’t even agree with one another within their own Party. Hillary and Obama have been trash-talking each other for months…...Edwards after the fiasco of 2000 virtually disappeared from the fore-front….and now he wishes to announce interest in the Presidential Race!! Please Mr. Edwards for once be true to your nature and remain the weasel in the henhouse…...America doesn’t believe your lies that you have the Nation’s interests in mind.

Report this

By Jon B, February 22, 2007 at 10:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

When Hilary failed to zip Bill’s pants and unable to manage her spouse,  I don’t know how she is able to manage a nation.

Bill went out of control under Hilary’s stewardship. Hilary’s mind was out of control when she casted the vote for war and
is unable to control her mind to admit the wrongdoing, I really see her as a person incapable of managing anything.

Report this

By moni, February 22, 2007 at 9:53 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Doug Tarnopol:  Absolutely on the mark ! Chomsky is brilliant. 

The movie << Iraq in Fragments >> describes the reaction of young boys and men from the Sunni, Shia and Kurds as to how they have understood and experienced this unending war.  They ALL conclude that it has been a war in vain . . . and that they are certain that it has been fought only for the oil. The rich are profiting but the poor will only suffer more.
Even an old Kurdish man admits that it is time to put down their weapons.

Notice how Howard of Australia ridiculed Barack Obama for speculatively setting a date for withdrawal from Iraq if he were to be elected.
To this the Senator responded with “unless Howard is willing to send MORE troops from his own country to Iraq whatever “defense” Howard is offering to Bush is a moot point.’  Now paradoxicaly we are hearing of impending troop reductions among several countries including Australia, Britain and Denmark.

This morning I heard Tony Blair say that he was unaware of any intentions of attacking Iran.  As he put it IRAN is NOT Iraq.  How eloquent! Did he, however, think that Iraq WAS Afghanistan ?

Apparently we have a world-wide crisis of leadership.

Report this

By Ga, February 22, 2007 at 7:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

From The Daily Howler: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh021907.shtml

Has Clinton “owned up” to her “mistake?” Has she “admit[ted] past error?” For ourselves, we think it’s odd that Clinton won’t use the specific word “mistake” in describing her 10/02 vote. But in our judgment, she has owned up to her mistake—in fact, she did so long ago. Other readers might agree with that assessment—if Krugman would have the decency to tell them what Clinton has actually said.

The history: Clinton cast that awful vote in October 2002. (So did Kerry. So did Edwards.) But omigod! As early as August 2004, she had clearly rethought the vote. On August 29, she appeared on Meet the Press (where she staunchly defended Kerry and Edwards). Here’s part of what she said—well over two years ago:

RUSSERT (8/29/04): Jay Rockefeller, the vice chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, was on this program a few weeks ago and this is what he said: “...We in Congress would not have authorized that war—we would not have authorized that war—with 75 votes if we knew what we know now.” Do you agree with him?

CLINTON: There would not have been a vote, Tim. There would never have been a vote to the Congress presented by the administration. There would have been no basis for it.

All the way back in 8/04, Clinton said there would have been “no basis” for that vote if we’d known there were no WMD. There wouldn’t even have been a vote, she told Russert (also Wolf Blitzer). Since then, she’s continued making that statement, even spelling things out for the very slow by adding the obvious corollary—she herself would have voted “no” if she’d known there were no WMD. Do you mind if we make a simple statement? In our view, Clinton did “say that she was wrong to vote for the Iraq war resolution” when she made that statement to Russert. (When she said she’d have voted the other way if she knew about the WMD.) Indeed, we were actively impressed with Clinton’s formulation; at the time, we’d been wondering why Dems weren’t offering this obvious presentation.

...

As one can tell by reading it, the Daily Howler is very good at analysing the Media and the Pundits.

She was wrong then, Hondo, as she basically has admitted.

Invading Iraq was wrong unless one adheres to the ideological view that 650,000 deaths and sheer misery across Iraq, the growth and expansion of Al Qeada and other terrorist groups, the utter contempt of the US by more and more people throughout the world, was worth it.

The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq was and is the worse foreign policy disaster in the history of the U.S. and can only be trumped by doing the same to Iran. It was caused by an absolute fool and supported by absolute fools.

It is utter arrogance and bigotry and ignorance to remain clutching to the absurdity that brute force is a way to foster peace.

Just try punching people in the face as you strut your way through life and just see how many people you piss off. That’s is the foreign policy of the U.S. as supported by the Christian Conservatives who believe utterly that it is entirely OKAY to reign down bombs and misery on the people of the Middle East simply and only because they are non-christian.

It is sick and it CAUSES terrorism. Only a fool does not understand that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, we need to weild a stick now and then, carrots will not always work nor would one one to use carrots all the time. But neither should one weild nothing but a stick. Apparently, a stick is all a Christian Conservartive knows how to wield. Yeah. We need to bring stoning back. That’ll fix everything.

Report this

By Paul, February 22, 2007 at 7:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Sue—

A pro-Iraq war candidate shouldn’t win regardless of their gender.

Report this

By Abdul sheikh, February 22, 2007 at 7:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am happy that Hillary Clinton has come out and stated that “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast a vote [to authorize the war] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,”.  Now I would not feel guilty for not voting for her in the primary election since she is a woman. I never liked her for flip flopping on major issues in the past to get elected as a senator, toe the AIPAC line just like Lieberman to get enormous funding. 

We need a president who does not make stupid decison of supporting a war that has cost a trillion dollars with more than 3000 American lives.

Report this

By Vacation time ~ new brain cells, February 22, 2007 at 6:36 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo:

You need a vacation (long) as your posts depict same.

Here I’ll even give you a plane ticket with a beautiful, peaceful destination:

http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/city.html?n=27

If that fails to “clean” your brain cells.  Try the new stem cells coming to a theater near you.
nite,nite

Report this

By Ernest Canning, February 22, 2007 at 6:03 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am saddened to see that even at this late date there are individuals like Hondo who are still taken in by the Bush administration’s WMD canard.  I had considered adding Scott Ritter’s “Iraq Confidential” to Chris Scheer’s suggested readings, the 2002 NIE and “Five Greatest Lies,” but when I read the testy response to Mr. Scheer’s respectful suggestion, I realized that Hondo is one of those individuals who goes through life within a disinformation bubble erected by the faux news at Fox—a bubble that is impervious to information that does not fit a distorted right-wing perception of reality.

Report this

By Lord Byron, February 22, 2007 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

You still don’t get it, Sue, do you?

<What would all of you be whinning about her if she voted “no” I wonder?>

There are DEFINING VOTES that make up a congressman or congresswoman’s tenure while in publice office. The vote to give Bush authority to invade Iraq was ONE OF THOSE DEFINING VOTES. And Hillary FAILED MISERABLY. And I don’t want to see a Democratic candidate affiliated with SUPPORT FOR BUSH’s WAR ON IRAQ to be elected President!

It is that simple. Hillary has not proven herself AT ALL in foreign affairs and her stance on the key domestic issues of the day are unknown to me. Hillary is NOT a leader and is NOT Presidential material. Neither, of course, was/is George W. Bush. But it just goes to show you that the most incompetent of public officials can be elected to the highest public office and that says more about the American electorate than anything else!

Report this

By to Mr Geffen, who calls Hilary 'ambitious', February 22, 2007 at 5:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Your candidate, Obama, is also very ambitious, in case you haven’t noticed. Running for President of the most powerful country in the world at age 45? Very very ambitious. Deeply deeply ambitious.
Oh, but i see your point: Hilary is a woman.
It should be about the policies, not about who’s ‘ambitious’.
What are Hilary’s policies?
What are Obama’s policies?
Hilary is a known quantity. What the heck is Obama? Really, i would like to know, so i can choose whether to support him.

Report this

By pettyfogger, February 22, 2007 at 5:35 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

ENOUGH ALREADY, WITH THE BUSHES AND THE CLINTONS!  Let’s get a “crossover” candidate that goes against type, in the casting sense (Hagel, Webb and Smith of Oregon come to mind), and can elevate this nation above the - forgive me -  Clintonian partisanship that has rebounded with the likes of “Dubya” as our hare-brained representative to the rest of the world.  ‘Nuff said?

Report this

By Phil Gallagher, February 22, 2007 at 4:37 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

KUCINICH: A ‘BLACKER’ CANDIDATE THAN OBAMA

Man, Robert Scheer couldn’t be more correct in his analysis of Hillary Clinton’s lawyeristic gyrations…what a phony. I can’t comprehend how so many Democrats in the rank and file think that she’s the Messiah in feminine garb and remain enamoured of this pair (I mean Hillary & Bill) as if they had been the greatest thing that we ever had in political leadership…In Europe, Latin America and otehr places they laugh at us because they see these folks as utterly compromised centrists, not much different in their allegiance to the empire’s priorities than that beneath contempt politician in Britain, Tony Bliar. It borders on the ludicrous.

In any case, I just read this eye-opening piece on this webzine, Cyrano, after being disgusted with the pirouettes of Hillary Clinton and her triangulating, disgustingly unprincipled cohorts at the DLC, and I thought for a moment that, as the media, and so many lieberals (like “lieberman, get it?) seemed to be saying, Obama represented a viable alternative—a man of principle. Boy was I wrong.  It took none other than Glen Ford, a distinguished African American journalist who currently helms the Black Agenda Report, and his colleague Bruce Dixon, all with impeccable authority on this issue, and terrific credentials as solid progressives, to set me straight about this guy and many other matters. Now, it’s good-bye Obama for me, and c’mon Kucinich.  We’re for you!

Those of my fellow readers at Truthdig may find these pieces at Cyrano’s Journal.  Here’s the link to the Kucinich piece: http://www.bestcyrano.org/bruceDixon.Kucinichblacker.htm

Also, Glen Ford recently filed a mighty important piece at the same Cyrano Journal, addressing the imposture by the GOP and the establishment in general (it’s done by both so-called parties) of putting black faces in positions of imperial power. It ought to be read by every American, starting with African Americans. Again, here’s the link for those who’d like to check it out—

http://www.bestcyrano.org/fordGlenPuttingblackFaces21807.htm

Incidentally, my sincere thanks to the editors of Truthdig, its writers, and to these invaluable information resources for their deep devotion to truth and public service, in this case in the defense of peace and democracy—at a critical point in our history.

Report this

By a voice from the wilderness, February 22, 2007 at 3:07 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Hondo,
There were plenty of people who questioned the available information during the run-up to war in Iraq.  Of course, much of the MSM and particularly Fox News were trumpeting loudly for war.  I suspect many of those who accepted the rationale at the time were shell-shocked in the aftermath of 9/11 and wanted revenge, regardless of whether it was aimed in the right direction.

It’s ironic that Cheney was among those who, in 1991, cautioned against trying to take Baghdad for reasons that proved prescient in 2003.

I can’t help but wonder how much of the Christian Right’s eagerness for a wider Middle East war was simply a desire to hasten the End Times.  And that’s without adding in the influence of AIPAC on neocon ideology.

Report this

By Peter RV, February 22, 2007 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Experience of having women as heads of state was not a very fortunate one,so far.
  There was Indira Gandi who started war on Pakistan, then there was Golda Mayer with her war on Egypt followed by Bandarique of Sri-Lanka who started a sloughter which still lasts.
Now, Hillary Clinton promises, if elected, to continue this beautifull female tradition.
I don’t know about the others but Hillary shows all signs of being a costantly frustrated woman who is trying to take it on somebody.She seems to be resentful being a female. Can anybody imagine being in bed with her? The only thing she is missing is fangs. No wonder her poor Bill prefered a gentle Monica over his hissing wife.
Not even if Osama Bin Laden was running against her, she would get my vote. ( In that case I would write-in Monica’s name)

Report this

By tyler, February 22, 2007 at 2:49 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

to SUE:

You really need to cut the blind feminist act and use your brain to look past the the fact that mrs. Clinton is a woman.  We ‘wolves’ you speak of ARE NOT ALL MEN, and we are attacking her stance on the war, not her gender!  The reason we are worried about her ‘yes’ vote, is because since the vote, more than enough evidence has surfaced to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the war in iraq is illegal.  Many who casted ‘yes’ votes have changed their stance in light of all the evidence, but mrs. Clinton HAS NOT. Tens of thousands have died in iraq as a result of this war, AND THATS WHY WE ARE WORRIED!  If she had voted ‘no’, or even changed her stance, then certainly I know I would look at her differently. I don’t care who runs for president, i’m looking at the issues, not the gender.  You, obviously, are not.  It is my opinion that you need to do some serious reading, try to find out WHY she is ‘sticking to her guns’, and perhaps keep quiet until you have an intelligent arguement to bring to the discussion.  You are giving true feminists a bad name.

Report this

By A Passionate Attachment, February 22, 2007 at 1:46 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Joe Wilson - June 14, 2003

“The real agenda in all of this of course, was to redraw the political map of the Middle East. Now that is code, whether you like it or not, but it is code for putting into place the strategy memorandum that was done by Richard Perle and his study group in the mid-90’s which was called, “A Clean Break - A New Strategy for the Realm.” And what it is, cut to the quick, is if you take out some of these countries, some of these governments that are antagonistic to Israel then you provide the Israeli government with greater wherewithal to impose its terms and conditions upon the Palestinian people, whatever those terms and conditions might be. In other words, the road to peace in the Middle East goes through Baghdad and Damascus. Maybe Tehran. And maybe Cairo and maybe Tripoli if these guys actually have their way. Rather than going through Jerusalem.”

19:46: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/28-lecture-wilson-32.mp3

“On the other ones, the geopolitical situation, I think there are a number of issues at play; there’s a number of competing agendas. One is the remaking of the map of the Middle East for Israeli security, and my fear is that when it becomes increasingly apparent that this was all done to make Sharon’s life easier and that American soldiers are dying in order to enable Sharon to impose his terms upon the Palestinians that people will wonder why it is American boys and girls are dying for Israel and that will undercut a strategic relationship and a moral obligation that we’ve had towards Israel for 55 years. I think it’s a terribly flawed strategy.”

13:33: http://next.epic-usa.org/epicdev2/_media/2003forumaudio/29-lecture-qa-32.mp3

Report this

By Sue, February 22, 2007 at 1:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Mike, Hillary has said her “yes” vote on the war was a mistake and she takes responsibilty for it, but she don’t feel the need to apologize for something she felt was the right thing to do at the time. That is not being weak. She’s standing her ground. Sticking by what she thought right at the time. To the contrary it shows strength and conviction for her beliefs, on her part not to fold and shy away from those who are trying their hardest to make her do so. She as much said so by telling all unhappy about her approach that there are “other choices” to choose from.
I see her not looking back, but moving forward in trying to correct a mistake made in the past. And that’s the picture we all should be concerned about no matter who the candidate.

Report this

By Christopher Robin, February 22, 2007 at 1:16 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While people look to who or why they support someone. The clearest way to know what they will truly be like once in office. Is to look at how they behaved and voted while in office, period. All campaign b.s. aside. This applies to all the candidates.

Go back through time, and you’ll see a direct correlation to past performance and future behavior.

When Reagan first ran as president, he said he intended to balance the budget. Sounds great for a conservative. But look to his years as governor of California in the 60’s and a different picture would emerge, one who actually ran up the California debt.

So before you become sold on clever heart tugging slogans, crafted tv ads , and stump speeches that tell you how they understand and promises of all the wonderful things they will do in the future. Look to what they have done and are doing in office and please sober up from the idol worship. Expect them to explain and defend their reasoning. For these are the real qualities your vote will be putting in office.

Report this

By Michael Kwiatkoski, February 22, 2007 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

—Comment #54841 by Sue on 2/22 at 6:38 am

Ok you “guys”. I thank you for your feedback on my post of 2/21. BUT, I can’t help but to continue to defend it. Ever since Hillary made known her intentions of running for president,(which most knew was a factual eventual occurance waiting to happen), the wolves are coming out of the woodwork with far to long waiting “pounce and take no prisoner” attitude. Now, I realize that, “that is politics for you”, but, these attacks seem to be coming more at “her “ camp than at any others who are running. And, any other who also voted for that war. Apologize? Apologize for what? She is sticking by her guns for what she believed was the right course of action at the time.
Why are we worrying so much about her “yes” vote, and not other issues that are also important. What would all of you be whinning about her if she voted “no” I wonder? Oh yes, I’m sure all of you wolves will find something else. It’s just in you. It’s a man’s world don’t you know. Let’s not dare widen narrow minds to even think that times such as a “woman president” might be on the horizon.
This is just my opinion, Hillary can handle her own and obviously wouldn’t be running if she couldn’t. GO HILLARY!—

Clearly you are not going to listen to reason.  You are also quite clearly disingenuous.  The issue, as I’ve said, is her inability to demonstrate that she has the capacity to recognize errors on her part.  Hillary must learn that in order to be president, you have to be able to correct mistakes.  We all make them, because we are after all only human.  But to remain firm in what was quite obviously a grossly erroneous vote concerning war, against the will of a growing majority of Americans who think we never should have gone into Iraq in the first place, just makes her seem more like George W. Bush.

I ask you this: do you want a president who can learn from past mistakes so she can correct them?  Or do you want a replay of the Bush era of warmongering, irresponsibility and passing of the buck?  If it’s the latter, then you’re going to end up in a shrinking minority of voters come primary time.

You’re attacking Mr. Scheer not because he made an attack against Mrs. Clinton’s gender, as your original comment seems to imply.  You’re attacking him because you know he’s right and, lacking any substantive argument with which to reply to his own, choose to hide behind the senator from new York’s sex.  That you have said absolutely nothing to disprove what I or Mr. Scheer have said speaks volumes.  So spare me your phony display of feminist righteousness.  You’re not fooling anyone.

Report this

By vet240, February 22, 2007 at 11:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary says, “If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast a vote [to authorize the war] or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from,”

Why can’t the Democratic party wake up. Aproximately eight weeks before the 2004 election, John Kerry started sounding more and more like G bush. I was sickened by his comments which seemed to lend legitimacy to the bush administrations behavior.

Hillary is dead on arrival in my book. The Democrats will be DOA if they don’t come up with a candidate that gives the American people a clear choice regarding foreign policy.

Are we going to continue to exploit the rest of the world or are we going to be a participating partner in working to help those less fortunate than ourselves?

It may sound to some like a polly-anna pipe dream to some, but I believe that the terrorist actions we have seen and will continue to see are the result of the haves continuing to take more and more from the have-nots.

We see this working in our own country against our own. In the last 50 years America has seen a 80 percent rise in productivity but only a 2 percent rise in real wages. Where is the wealth generated by the increase in productivity going? Into the pockets of the wealthy. The middle class is being decimated while we out-source all manner of jobs.

The Democrats had better grow the guts to oppose the trend toward selling out to the corporate interests, or a new party may come along and put them all out.

Report this

By Doug Tarnopol, February 22, 2007 at 11:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Look, let’s cut through some b.s here. The real reason for Democratic support of the Iraq War, lack of support for a withdrawal, and support for Israel’s war against Hezbollah and Hamas is because of the following:

Chomsky: [...]By accident of geography, the world’s major oil resources are in Shi’ite-dominated areas. Iran’s oil is concentrated right near the gulf, which happens to be an Arab area, not Persian. Khuzestan is Arab, has been loyal to Iran, fought with Iran not Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. This is a potential source of dissension…U.S. forces right across the border in Iraq, including the surge, are available potentially to “defend” an independent Khuzestan against Iran, which is the way it would be put…

Shank: Do you think that’s what the surge was for?

Chomsky: That’s one possibility…use them for a potential land move in Iran—presumably Khuzestan where the oil is. If you could carry that off, you could just bomb the rest of the country to dust.

...

It’s very hard to predict the Bush administration today because they’re deeply irrational. They were irrational to start with but now they’re desperate. They have created an unimaginable catastrophe in Iraq. This should’ve been one of the easiest military occupations in history and they succeeded in turning it into one of the worst military disasters in history. They can’t control it and it’s almost impossible for them to get out for reasons you can’t discuss in the United States because to discuss the reasons why they can’t get out would be to concede the reasons why they invaded.

We’re supposed to believe that oil had nothing to do with it, that if Iraq were exporting pickles or jelly and the center of world oil production were in the South Pacific that the United States would’ve liberated them anyway. It has nothing to do with the oil, what a crass idea. Anyone with their head screwed on knows that that can’t be true. Allowing an independent and sovereign Iraq could be a nightmare for the United States. It would mean that it would be Shi’ite-dominated, at least if it’s minimally democratic. It would continue to improve relations with Iran, just what the United States doesn’t want to see. And beyond that, right across the border in Saudi Arabia where most of Saudi oil is, there happens to be a large Shi’ite population, probably a majority.

...

You can imagine a kind of a loose Shi’ite alliance in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, controlling most of the world’s oil and independent of the United States. And much worse, although Europe can be intimidated by the United States, China can’t. It’s one of the reasons, the main reasons, why China is considered a threat…

China has been there for 3,000 years, has contempt for the barbarians, is overcoming a century of domination, and simply moves on its own. It does not get intimidated when Uncle Sam shakes his fist. That’s scary. In particular, it’s dangerous in the case of the Middle East. China is the center of the Asian energy security grid, which includes the Central Asian states and Russia. India is also hovering around the edge, South Korea is involved, and Iran is an associate member of some kind. If the Middle East oil resources around the Gulf, which are the main ones in the world, if they link up to the Asian grid, the United States is really a second-rate power. A lot is at stake in not withdrawing from Iraq.

I’m sure that these issues are discussed in internal planning. It’s inconceivable that they can’t think of this. But it’s out of public discussion, it’s not in the media, it’s not in the journals, it’s not in the Baker-Hamilton report. And I think you can understand the reason. To bring up these issues would open the question why the United States and Britain invaded. And that question is taboo.

Report this

By Hondo, February 22, 2007 at 11:15 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

To Doug Tarnopol (comment #54691)—You ask, what does it tell us that I support Hillary’s original decision? It tells us that I, the Christian conservative, am honest and you are not. The facts, as we knew them at that time, gave us no option but to attack.

To Bukko (comment #54697)—Enjoy your march! That will probably be good cardiovascular exercise for you!

To Lee Driver (comment #54707)—-You can scream and yell and hyperventilate and foam at the mouth all you want. You can ignore the indisputable facts. That doesn’t change the facts. The wonderful thing about the Internet is that one can go back and look at what the facts were at that time. We don’t have to depend on liberal lies and revisionist history. I would encourage those of you who are actually sane (as opposed to Mr. Driver) to use your Internet to investigate for yourself.

To Christopher Scheer (comment #54732)—-Saying that the Clintons were misled just might be the most ignorant comment I have ever heard. Bill Clinton was the Commander-In-Chief while Bush was still governor of Texas. Just how does a Texas governor “dupe” the President of the United States on anything? Good grief! Ask the wizard for a brain, liberal scarecrow!

To Bert (comment #54735)—Are you really advocating for the formulation of defense policy based on polls? Perhaps you slept through the part of your high school civics class where they talked about America being a “republic.” Good grief!

To Jackie T. Gabel (comment #54825)—Yes, Jackie, you really showed me! Now, would you please find Nurse Ratchet? It’s medication time! Oh, and don’t forget to wear your tin foil hat today. I’m monitoring your thoughts!

Ladies and gentlemen, you can scream all you want, but that doesn’t change the indisputable facts that I layed out in my original comment. I don’t care for Hillary because she is a scary socialist, but that doesn’t mean that she was wrong with her original vote. She wasn’t wrong then. She is a liar today, though, as she flips and flops about her original position.

Report this

By Sylvia Barksdale Morovitz, February 22, 2007 at 10:48 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Granted, Hillary Clinton is a brilliant woman.  As First Lady, she drew up an admirable, comprehensive health care plan for all American citizens.  As usual, if it’s for the people of our country; the ones who pay to keep the Washington Mill operating, Congress knocked it down.
We must keep in mind, however, that prior to her marriage to Bill, she was 100% republican.  In that she has not denounced her vote for Bush’s war, her republicanism still shows through.  She says that if Bush will not end the war, she will.  I do believe that Hillary Clinton believes what she is saying.  Yet, who knows the pressures she will run into as president?  I am convinced that Bush and Cheney still intend to run the show from the sidelines; that is the reason the big push for McCain is on.  I believe that Hillary is a strong person and will not cave in easily but as we all know, when it comes to our leadership, anything is possible.
I may be dreaming but I’d like to see Al Gore as president and John Edwards as vice president.  If not these two, then Obama as president and Hillary as vice president.  Whomever draws the high card had better begin working on bringing our planet back to health.  Even with all the wars and even if Bush ahould nuke Iran [as he has talked about], if the leaderships of the Earth keep ignoring the damage we’re doing to Mother Earth, we’d damned sure better begin building our arks!

Report this

By marie2, February 22, 2007 at 10:33 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am grateful there are presidential candidates who are against the war.  However, I hope that the candidates are also willing to spend some of the resources from the war on real issues such as global poverty.  According to the Borgen Project, only .16% of the federal budget is spent on foreign aid annually.

Report this

By David, February 22, 2007 at 9:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’m sorry, I can’t vote for this woman.  I’d have a hard time voting for her over any of the Republican candidates aside from Gingrich and Romney. I just can’t believe that its impossible for our nation to have a decent human being as our leader.  I suppose morality is antithetical to business interests. It doesn’t help that the majority of the nation gets their information from partisian hack talk show hosts like Limbaugh who never so much as went to college.

Report this

By Richard Valentine, February 22, 2007 at 9:26 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

My first time at this site, it is refreshing to hear so many well informed citizens. I found an interview on the PBS News Hour last month to be quite revealing about Hillary Clinton’s view on U.S. Foreign Policy:

“GWEN IFILL: You and the president don’t agree on much when it comes to the war in Iraq, but you both do seem to agree that there should not be a deadline, a timetable set. Why not?

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON: Well, I think the timetable still remains problematic. You know, make no mistake about it: I’m for getting our forces home as soon as possible.

But I do believe we have vital national security interests in Iraq. You know, al-Anbar province is the hotbed for the Sunni insurgency and for al-Qaida in Iraq. They weren’t there before; they’re there now. And we do have an interest in preventing them from basically having a foothold, similar to what the al-Qaida and Taliban forces had under Taliban protection in Afghanistan.”

From her perch in elite circles she can’t seem to accept the fact that it is BECAUSE of the U.S. Occupation of Iraq that there is a violent Sunni insurgency. Before the illegal 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq there had never been a suicide bombing in that country. Since the invasion there have been hundreds.

Here is another Hillary quote where she straddles the fence, saying she is for a draw down while implying she is for permanent bases in Iraq and the ability to strike against Iran:

“I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended commitment without limits or end, nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. If last December’s elections lead to a successful Iraqi government, that should allow us to start drawing down our troops during this year while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safe areas with greater intelligence and quick-strike capabilities. This will help us stabilize that new Iraqi government. It will send a message to Iran that they do not have a free hand in Iraq despite their considerable influence and personal and religious connections there. It will also send a message to Israel and our other allies, like Jordan, that we will continue to do what we can to provide the stability necessary to prevent the terrorists from getting any further foothold than they currently have.”

I look forward to the Democrat debates and expect, if given the opportunity, Dennis Kucinich to be the only candidate to actually give voice to the view of the majority of Americans that they are growing tired of Imperial dominance and would rather see domestic needs met such as healthcare, education and jobs.

Report this

By exitstan, February 22, 2007 at 9:21 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Go vote for someone else…” 

If I am still an American citizen at that time, I certainly will.
She represents the worst of the spineless, triangulating, pants-wetting Democratic Party, who so patriotically rolled over for that bloodthirsty fundie regime of boobs.

If she and her supporters can be so wrong regarding a life and death issue of such magnitude, then they have no business managing anything that affects the welfare of others.
If she could not understand—in 2002—that Americans were about to make the biggest strategic blunder in the history of their country, then how can anyone be so credulous as to think that she would be able to help the US shed the pariah status it currently enjoys.

Oh… I forgot.  We’re talking about Americans here.

Never mind.

-ex-pat forever

Report this

By Robert Hutwohl, February 22, 2007 at 9:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary is simply NOT a leader for the nation. She is simply a follower among followers. We need to consider someone else.

Report this

By James Edinger, February 22, 2007 at 8:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I think we get the picture.  You dig deep to find anything that will help you join the hate Hillary bandwagon and look. ‘in the know’.  It seems that all of the blogs are against Hillary and for Obama.  Arianna knows best.  Let’s go ahead and forget every one except Obama.  We seem to enjoy swimming in shallow water.

Report this

By Jim, February 22, 2007 at 8:25 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

She can not win. I’m a Dem. but will not vote for her. I’d vote for a woman, who is qualified and honest in a minute. She is neither.

Report this

By Sue, February 22, 2007 at 7:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Ok you “guys”. I thank you for your feedback on my post of 2/21. BUT, I can’t help but to continue to defend it. Ever since Hillary made known her intentions of running for president,(which most knew was a factual eventual occurance waiting to happen), the wolves are coming out of the woodwork with far to long waiting “pounce and take no prisoner” attitude. Now, I realize that, “that is politics for you”, but, these attacks seem to be coming more at “her ” camp than at any others who are running. And, any other who also voted for that war. Apologize? Apologize for what? She is sticking by her guns for what she believed was the right course of action at the time.
Why are we worrying so much about her “yes” vote, and not other issues that are also important. What would all of you be whinning about her if she voted “no” I wonder? Oh yes, I’m sure all of you wolves will find something else. It’s just in you. It’s a man’s world don’t you know. Let’s not dare widen narrow minds to even think that times such as a “woman president” might be on the horizon.
This is just my opinion, Hillary can handle her own and obviously wouldn’t be running if she couldn’t. GO HILLARY!

Report this

By Christopher, February 22, 2007 at 6:39 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Beyond Hillary’s pro-Iraq war vote is the poor political advice she’s receiving from Terry McAullife.

Her camp is so terrified of being labeled a “fli-flopper” by her GOP challengers that Hillary will never say those three little words: “I was wrong.”

But I believe in taking people at their word and after Hillary basically told everyone, “OK, so don’t vote for me,” I decided then and there to not support her and I intend to support Barack Obama (her arch enemy now) in the 2008 presidential election.

Besides, I’m weary of the Bush: Clinton: Bush: Clinton drama. It’s time for new faces and fresh voices.

Report this

By Michael Kwiatkowski, February 22, 2007 at 5:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I am amazed at how some people are attacking Scheer for perceived criticism of Mrs. Clinton’s gender.  It’s not her gender that is at issue; it’s her refusal to even recognize, much less admit, that she made a mistake in voting to authorize force against Iraq.  When you and I make mistakes, chances are we will pay for them sooner or later.  Our errors do not result in the needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of human beings.  Consequences of that level are reserved for the mistakes of presidents.

The truth is Kerry and Edwards were smart enough to know they were lied to, but that this fact does not absolve them of their failure to do their homework on the Bush regime’s lies in its push for war.  And they have had the good sense and decency to apologize for their grave error.  Mrs. Clinton, in trying to come off as tough, is emulating George W. Bush by taking the insanely moronic position that any admission of error is a sign of fallibility and, therefore, weakness.  It’s not weakness to admit to having been wrong.  But it is weakness to stubbornly refuse to take responsibility for a goof that has cost lives.  How can Mrs. Clinton be expected to extract us from Iraq, when she can’t even acknowledge that our going in was a mistake to begin with?

And how can anyone who supports her take offense for criticizing her over a legitimate issue?  She is running for president of the United States.  Her words and actions will help voters determine if she is fit for the job.  If she puts herself in the ring, she’d better be prepared to take her lumps along with everyone else.  If she can’t, she doesn’t deserve the presidency.  It’s as simple as that.  And perhaps her supporters who want to use false accusations of sexism on the part of Mr. Scheer should seriously consider that their criticism of him stems not from any attack on her gender, but on the fact he told an unpleasant truth about their candidate.

Report this

By Jackie T. Gabel, February 22, 2007 at 4:08 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hondo, you must be getting pretty bored on your own blog, so your back for more.

OK, you asked for it. Not only did Saddam have ZERO WMD, but the only serious WMD threat in 10 years leading up to the invasion of the Middle East by the NWO’s newly appropriated Expeditionary Force, came on the 911 coup; you know where they held a gun to the POTUS’ head (Angel is Next) and instructed him to call Putin and tell him we’re invading and he’d better not make a peep, because…just take a look — all of STRATCOM is in an advanced DEFCON posture, and you got no choice — we got the drop on ya, Vlad. But, before they launch on Iran, there is the issue of “Sunburst” — http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5621 — moreover, what will the Russians and Chinese do? — http://www.mayanmajix.com/art565.html

Report this

By ralph wirfs, February 22, 2007 at 1:07 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The “had I known then what I know now” is totally lame. She & we knew about Viet Nam, about Shia/Sunni politics & potentials.

If one is smart enough to be a U.S. senator, w/ access to all the itel data, Ms. Clinton’s vote is proof of thougtless irresponsible decision-making, far short of the mark required of a president.

At best she’s lazy & stupid; at worst she’s nutso & dangerous. Beware!

Report this

By Rich Gillock, February 22, 2007 at 12:18 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Once again, Robert Scheer got it right.  First of all Bill Clinton was the first moderate Republican elected to be President since Eisenhower.  Forget that he ran as a Democrat, his record on progressive issues was to the right of Richard Nixon.  Bill Clinton only appears progressive when sandwiched between Reagan/Bush and Bush the brainless.

Like most politicians who have never served in combat, Hillary Clinton thinks that wars can be won.  She thinks that war is a way of achieving a goal.  As any veteran will testify, war is gory, not glory.  Combat is about fear, fear of death, fear of pain, fear of letting your buddies down, fear of screwing up, and fear of fear.

And war is not an end, it is a method that should be reserved for the most exceptional of times, because even in war, the goal must be peace.  War is the failure of diplomacy.  The fact that this administration scorns diplomacy is the root cause of our wars. 

Unfortunately, Hillary Clinton is more like George W. Bush than most of us would like to acknowledge.  She is mean, vindictive, and though much smarter than Bush, is reticent to admit a mistake.  Except for the Faith Based Initiative and Judicial Appointments, I don’t think you will see substantive differences between a Bush White House and a H.Clinton White House.

Report this

By tyler, February 21, 2007 at 10:40 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thank you HANNA and MICHAEL, for calling SUE out! It is incredibly annoying when someone like sue plays a ‘prejudice card’ when they can’t dignify an arguement with an intelligent response.  And anyone who thinks that Mrs. Clinton’s views towards the war have nothing to do with her affiliation with AIPEC needs to be slapped!  Wait a tick, does that make me anti-semetic SUE?

Report this

By Jon B, February 21, 2007 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

>>>>>>Hilary Clinton won’t rule use of force to stop “pro-terrorist” Iran<<<<<<<
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Senator_Clinton_wont_run_out_war_0203.html

If you want a bigger war starting 2008-2012 and enormous amount of casualties, Hilary Clinton is your bloody hell candidate.

Not like any other women I know, this woman’s heart is stone cold. Urrrgggggggg.

Report this

By roberto, February 21, 2007 at 10:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“I will take the president at his word that he will try hard to pass a U.N. resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible,” she said.

Now why would Hillary take him at his word when in his commencement speech to the graduating class of West Point he had already laid out his “Bush Doctrine” of military preemption, unilateralism, world dominance and hegemony, (later formally set forth in The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, yet prior to the Senate war authorization resolution)?

Report this

By Bluestocking, February 21, 2007 at 8:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“In light of her hawkish posturing and consistent support of the war for all the wrong reasons, the best advice on Hillary’s campaign comes from the candidate herself: If you’re against the war, vote for someone else.”

****************************

Fine by me!  I consider myself a liberal, but that doesn’t automatically mean that I want Hillary to be the next President—or even that I want her to EVER be President. I may have voted for her in the last election, given that I’m a resident of New York State, but only because I disagreed with her opponent even more than I disagree with her.  She’s certainly not the only choice, and I’m by no means convinced that she’s the best choice for the Democratic nomination.  In my opinion, unless the Democrats really want a repeat of the last two presidential elections, the Democrats need a candidate who can potentially attract Republican voters—and I don’t believe that Hillary is the best person to do that, although I think that’s precisely one of the reasons behind her hawkish stance.

Report this

By Guitarsandmore, February 21, 2007 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I will be throwing my support behind John Edwards who is the most liberal candidate running for office.

Report this

By Ernest Canning, February 21, 2007 at 7:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

It isn’t just Mrs. Clinton’s inability to accept her own responsibility for the horror that is Iraq that should concern us.  Her position on Iran is downright frightening.  She told a group at an AIPAC conference, “In dealing with this threat [an unproven assertion that Iran may acquire a nuclear capability], as I have said for a very long time, no option can be taken off the table.”

While Mr. Scheer is right to focus on Mrs. Clinton’s lack of candor about what she “knew then,” I would hope that, in the coming months, we can focus as well on where she and other DLC candidates stand on what Jeff Faux aptly describes as “The Global Class War”.  Faux’s book by that name explores the manner in which the Clinton administration sold out the middle and working classes of this country by advancing the neoliberal agenda by carrying out the Reagan/Bush I NAFTA agenda, which enabled our manufacturing base, and good paying jobs, to be outsourced, enriching the top 1% as it drove down wages in all three North American countries and enhanced environmental degradation.

I would hope that Truthdig will be a place where a careful analysis will be provided regarding the positions of each candidate upon issues that really matter to the vast majority of Americans; a place where at least an adequate number of articles will focus on candidates who don’t receive much play in the corporate-owned media.  I am troubled when I see, in Truthdig, so much play extended to media darlings like Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama, and so little devoted to someone who stands head and shoulders above the rest, on Iraq, on single-payer health care, on media reform and on a host of other progressive issues, like Mr. Kucinich.

Report this

By Terry Sloth, February 21, 2007 at 7:45 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“I NEVER thought I would be in a position to defend Hillary, but here goes!

Hillary was right to support the war. “All available evidence” (contrary to the fiction in the above article) from each and every intelligence agency in the world said that Iraq had a WMD program, that he had WMD’s, that he was in the preliminary stages of establishing ties with other terror organizations, and that he fully intended to attack American targets.”

That settles it—anyone that Hondo defends is the antithesis of who I would vote for.

Hillary, is not known for being stupid—-as a senator, she had access to tons of information that the public never saw—-it seems that Hilary chose, the most politically expedient solution and went along with Bush.

Here’s an article that perhaps everyone should read: http://www.regressiveantidote.net/

Report this

By John Lowell, February 21, 2007 at 7:15 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Robert Scheer’s commentary continues to sparkle even though concern about the importance of electing a female president ought to rank right up there with contestations about whether one should own a Blackberry or a Treo. The recent Hagel article together with this one make Scheer’s analysis both incisive and reliable.

I recall a Scheer piece of a year or two ago that I found particularly memorable although details of it beyond what I’ll mention are utterly lost on me. It recounted Robert’s experience as a boy and that of his family in the 1940s in New York, or was it New Jersey. If someone might point me to that piece I’d be grateful.

John Lowell

Report this

By Polly Ester, February 21, 2007 at 6:55 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Another matter of concern is having three terms of Bush and possibly four terms of
Clinton—-that’s 28 years with only two families running this country—-is that a bit odd—in a population of 300 million, what is the probability of only finding two families who can rule America—-WE NEED A CHANGE!

Now, if you are lucky enough to be a
“robber baron,” Bush was NOT a disaster, but if you belong to the middle-class, even “mediocre Bill,” who eagerly sold the working-class out with his neo-liberalism and free trade policies, appears Godlike.

So don’t you think voters deserve more than mediocrity and incompetence?

Report this

By Kathleen Friedhoff, February 21, 2007 at 6:50 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Dear Bob,
You know -  I’ve always thought of you as such a cool, fair, intelligent, and ethical guy. This article on Hillary is such a bunch of spin (especially with the nasty photo you chose) that I think you have joined the rest of the exploitative press in punching up whatever headline will get the most attention. Consider me - NOT your most valued fan in South Jersey. This anti-hype is clearly shallow and far below my needs as a reader and podcast listener. You’re becoming no more than a Rush Limbaugh crowd-pleaser. Hillary - good or bad for the country - deserved better from you and TruthDig.
Most Heatedly,
Kathleen A. Friedhoff

Report this

By sdangond, February 21, 2007 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

RE:Comment #54711 by Sue on 2/21 at 11:09 am

Sue, Hillary Clinton wants to be the first woman president—- she doesn’t care how she gets there. Guess what? Those of us who DO care WILL choose someone else. Obviously you do not know Mr.Scheer; he is not being a chauvinist—-he is judging her on the ISSUES. I, as a woman, agree with what he said in his article. She gives no reason for anyone to feel threatened by her, but there’s plenty to be disgusted by what she says. I am so disappointed with her everytime she opens her mouth. She sounds like a Republican pretending to be a Democrat (hmmm…does that sound like Joe L.?)

Report this

By TJ, February 21, 2007 at 6:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Her money base is her strength in this fight.  Depending heavily on her base, Mrs. Clinton has no choice but to carry AIPAC water.  Please see Tom Hayden’s explanation of what it means when you are heavily dependent on measuring up to AIPAC standards.

Report this

By Canadianguy, February 21, 2007 at 5:54 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Let’s face it, whether she recognizes her “mistake” or not, whether she goes on record or not, whether we like it or not, Hillary Clinton is simply not going to go against the established interests regarding the Middle East. This just might split the vote, and then we’re faced with 4 more years of the bastards. Who are the anti-war candidates? Can anybody tell me what Bob Kennedy’s stance on the war was, please? Just curious. I’m pretty sure he wanted America out of Vietnam, even though it was his brother who really got America into that mess. But then again, Eisenhower DID warn us all…

Report this

By Paul, February 21, 2007 at 4:24 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

After listening to some of Hillary’s messages lately, she turned me away thinking she is way to hawkish for a progressive and positive development. PEACE has its’ price and the truth is extremely rare but needed. Pandering to the right wing warmongers is not a price I want to see again for a very long forever!

Report this

By Daniel in Chicago, February 21, 2007 at 3:58 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I’ll take her advice and vote for someone who didn’t vote to authorize the war: BARAK OBAMA!

Report this

By James Tugend, February 21, 2007 at 3:44 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

While Hillary would not be my choice candidate, I think it overstates her position to say she is a militarist in the present context.  She is too equivical, pandering, lialistic, and dispassionate, and her judgements too expedient, but she’s nothing lke the warmongering Bush/Cheney cabal.

Report this

By Hanna Karolyn, February 21, 2007 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Come on Sue, us girls are smarter than your dimwitted question implies. Mr. Scheer is making these very salient points about Senator Clinton because she isn’t simply a member of Congress, but rather has designs upon the Chief Executive’s office, and the means to make a serious run at the office.

If you, then, are wanting someone—man or woman—with these sorts of political beliefs and ideals to again serve as our President, you go right ahead grl, accuse male detractors of Hilary of being nothing but chauvinists. Some of us instead support the notion that a more sober, thoroughgoing assessment of Senator Clinton’s political philosophies is in order.

Report this

By Michael Kwiatkowski, February 21, 2007 at 3:12 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Comment #54711 by Sue on 2/21 at 11:09 am

Dear Mr. Scheer, Why do you pick on just Hillary in your article when it can easily sum up just about all in congress who voted “yes”, for the war both Republican and Democrat? Do I detect a bit a male chauvinism in those words of yours?
Why don’t you just say how you really feel about her. You hate her?, feel threatened by her? Possibly she’s a lot smarter than you? Most male conservatives and even some liberals do the same thing. This is how I read between the lines of articles like yours.”

This is nothing but pure idocy.  Scheer spoke the truth.  Simply because you find it unpleasant does not make it otherwise.  The fact is, unlike Mrs. Clinton Kerry and John Edwards have since realized the error of their vote and stated quite specifically that had they known then what they know now, they would never have authorized Bush to use force against Iraq in the first place.  The issue at hand is Mrs. Clinton’s inability to publicly recognize that she—like every other human being on the planet—is prone to making mistakes, and that the authorization she voted for was a huge one.  How can she be trusted to make competent decisions, and correct errors, when she refuses even to acknowledge that she has made them?  When you and I make mistakes, you and I pay for them.  When a president makes mistakes, everyone else pays for them.  And in far too many instances, that price is paid in blood.  So spare me your phony feminism.  I’m not buying it.  You’re simply angry with Mr. Scheer because he told a truth you can’t handle.  And if Mrs. Clinton is unable to take such criticism as president or presidential candidate, perhaps she shouldn’t be running.

Report this

By Skruff, February 21, 2007 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Jim Yell said “The last thing the Republican party ever did that was socially progressive, the President was Lincoln.”

Obviously Mr Yell was not present at the Margaret Chase Smith “Declaration of Conscience” during the Mc Carthy era.  Nor When Frank Sargent (R. Massachusetts) closed down the Commonwealth’s notorious reform school system, nor When Ed Brooke (R. Massachusetts) became the first Black Senator since the Civil war, Or when Norris Cotton (R. New Hampshire) stopped the interstate Highway system before it ruined Franconia Notch.  Dwight D. Eisenhower Who gave us two GREAT supreme court justices an era of peace and some good parting advice.Teddy Roosvelt who gave us the NAtional Park system,  Everett Dirksen, Bill Sautenstall, Mark Hatfield, Nelson Rockefeller, Tom Kean, Jake Javitz, Jerry Ford (who gave us John Paul Stevens)John Chaffee,

Look past party lables, and you might see some pretty “anti-progressive” Democrats
George Wallace, Lester Maddox,(and the rest of the Yellow-dog crowd) Joe Biden, Joe Lieberman, Charles S. Robb, Diane Finestein, and, yes, Hillary.

Vote the person, not the letter.

Report this

By Cinnamon_and_Opium, February 21, 2007 at 2:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

A lot of astute comments riding to nowhere. As long as there is man there is feud.

Report this

By Kol Klink, February 21, 2007 at 2:31 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Hillary has jumped in bed with AIPAC and has arisen with new imperialist ambitions.

Adios Hillary, Ola Obama…or any other candidate that will say ‘no more wars of imperialisim, no more project for a new American century, and definitely no…American interests and those of Israel are not necessarily the same!’

Israel can sink or swim on their on as does every other nation in the world. Its time for them, and us, to grow up and realize that if they wish to continue to exist as a state then they must to learn to play well with others.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook