In other words..we support another surge by the President. Get ready for a 10 year war folks.

Warner should shut up about Iraq ,sh#t or get off the pot,and I think the way he talks one way and acts another , he might be on pot.

The chances of an Iraqi compromise has always been about .000000000000001%, while we sit there and defend a civil war and the Iraqi  Priminister and Parlement wo are on "vacation". Would someone ,please tell George Bush what the hell is going on ! This is ridiculious. Bush needs to be "impeached" ,for "high crimes" against our soldiers.

The Washington 'insiders' screwed up Iraq.
The DC 'experts' don't have the answers !!
Bush is trying to keep us in Iraq so he won;t have to admit his failure. Bush wants us in Iraq so he can blame the Democrats for his failure.

The Bush/Biden/Dodd/Clinton policy of invading Iraq is a failure.
Sorry, none of the politicians can 'fix' Iraq.
Not even Joe Biden's 'thoughtful' proposals !!

One of the 'compromises' that Bush wants the Iraqis to agree to is to hand over control of Iraqi oil to American Oil companies !!  
Blood for Oil !!

.... all the king's horses and all the king's men...

Can't they wait for Dick to tell George to tell "the Generals on the ground" that we're making great progress and any second now we'll be greeted as liberators. Mission Accomplished.

If Levin pulled his glasses up on his nose, he could probably see better. Warner is past his prime. The man is 80 yrs old. Its time to go to the rocking chair and enjoy life. I would expect this answer coming from them.

Great, you little stupid, never been in the military before, let me lie to the American people about weapons of mass destruction, spoiled brat, thank God for my family, semi-retarded joke of a president this wonderful country voted for.  We took a stable country in an unstable region and destabilized it for fifty billion dollars.  All the while the true enemies of America; Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan were allowed to operate and continue funding and supporting the Islamic fundamentalists that planned and participated in 9-11.  This is the most sickening disaster of a foreign policy I have ever witnessed and hope that whatever is elected after this creature from Texas leaves, even if they do only 2 percent better than the shrub will be a relief felt globally.  I am ashamed that the greatest country on earth, America could let a disaster like this happen

We are being set up for more lives and money being lost. Our chicken $..t congress will give in again.

lets get 60 democrat senators before you blame congress then and only then will I think they suck,sort of how repubs must feel about the last congress house ,senate president,and still abortion what happend repubs.

Lloyd Roberts: Jillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd voted for this war.
What responsibility do they bear.
Those clown voted for this war.
Does that make the 'experts' now ?
Are they 'experienced' ??

Had the Democrats sttod together with Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin and Barack Obama in 2002, this war might have been prevented.

Clinton, Biden and Dodd wanted to look 'strong' and 'tough' and 'Presidential' !!
A pack of worthless opportunists !!!

Sierra just stop it! We were all lied to by this administration.We are all sooo impressed how you didn't fall for the lies but many people did, and that includes our politicians.Lloyd you put the blame where it belongs.Couldn't have said it better.

PS - no one voted for the war. The congress merely gave the president the authority to use the military in Iraq.  And Clinton and company cannot be blamed for voting to give this authorization when they were given false and misleading information about WMD's, etc. So people, stop lambasting Clinton for her vote.

The question has never been, "do we support the job the troops are doing."  Given the fact their mission has often been murky at best, their equipment has not been up to par and their intelligence has been faulty, thhey have done a great job.  The problem is and always has been, "do the Iraquis want to stand up and govern themselves without undermining one another and butchering each other?"  Until the Iraquis can prove they are worthy of the sacrifices our young men and women are making, I think we should redeploy and let themshow us what they can do.  If they fail, we should leave.

Don't worry about being in Iraq for ten years.  The job of destroying the U.S. will be completed long before that.  We haven't seen anything close to what's going to happen as a result of recent lending policies, the true cost of the "war on terror", letting our manufacturing defect and borrowing over a trillion dollars a year for the last several years.

Here is an interesting video about Iraq conspiracy theories: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1oPEfa9Lws

Jeanne GA:
Ted Kennedy wasn't 'fooled'
Dick Durbin wasn't 'fooled'
Inoyue, Boxer and Feingold weren't 'fooled'

Only the FOOLS who wanted to look 'strong' were fooled.
Now, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are parading around as 'experienced' DC insiders.
Now, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are 'qualified' to be President.
Now, the people who OPPOSED THE WAR ARE 'NAIVE' !!

Does that make sense to you, Jeanne GA ??
Come on now, tell the truth !!

Are we really here? Does no one see whats going on? We went to Iraq, we are still there. The majority of the men and women returning support the war. The constant bs about the President is starting to wear thin on alot of America. Once again the Dems had an oppertunity but will screw it up. Dissagree with policy, debate ideas,but personal attacks against the President will lead to defeat. The war can be won. Do we really think that all of Iraq wants to return to the Sadam days? Dont their women deserve the same rights as American women. Or do we believe they dont deserve it? There were several mistakes made ok. Lets fix it. Bailing out is not the answer, just as leaving it alone was not the answer. There are things worth fighting for. America cant give up again. Millions will be killed and tortured if we abandon them. a repeat of Vietnam is not the answer, surley not even the most ardent antiwar person wants that...

'....So people, stop lambasting Clinton for her vote.......  
;-)
She didn't know,
She couldn't help it,
She was fooled by Slick George
She's was just an innocent bystander !!

Poor, poor Hillary !!
Stop picking on her !!
PULEEEEEEEASE !!!!


I'm sure she'll do better when Bush attacks Iran

Jeanne GA:
Ted Kennedy wasn't 'fooled'
Dick Durbin wasn't 'fooled'
Inoyue, Boxer and Feingold weren't 'fooled'

Only the FOOLS who wanted to look 'strong' were fooled.
Now, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are parading around as 'experienced' DC insiders.
Now, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and Chris Dodd are 'qualified' to be President.
Now, the people who OPPOSED THE WAR ARE 'NAIVE' !!

Does that make sense to you, Jeanne GA ??
Come on now, tell the truth !!

Pat P.

Don't tell people what to do. If I want to lambast Clinton, I will. If I want to put her gutless political spirit on display for all to see, I will do that.

You know what, it doesn't matter that Clinton was supposedly "mislead," because you know what, she didn't do sh#t to try and find out the truth.

If more of our congressmen and women would have had the courage of Obama, Kennedy, and Durbin, maybe they would have put the intelligence through a more rigorous debate before reaching a conclusion.

Fact is, democrats were scared to defy Bush after the successful marketing of the Iraq war to the American public, and it wouldn't have mattered what Bush said those satellite pictures were.

Given the obvious rabid desire Bush had to go after Saddam, please explain to me the difference between 'voting for the war' and 'giving the president the authority to use the military in Iraq'?How many of the 77 Senators who voted for the war were only motivated by their fear of appearing to be unpatriotic by opposing it?

Democrats put out their foreign policy charter today: It consists of the words "Run away, run away!" repeated
over and over.

The true mark of an idiot is that they repeat the same lies, even after they have been exposed. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you...SIERRA!

Sierra-

You too, will soon enter that zone where your assertions have been rebutted, here in print, so many times, that they finally become irrelevant to all but the deluded.

Never again will you be able to post this one.



"When will Hillary fully explain her vote for the Iraq war ??"

She explained her vote, on the Senate floor in 2002. It's part of the Congressional Record. Here's the link;

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

I'd like you to read the whole speech, but for the record here, once and for all, I'm exerpting what she said SPECIFICALLY about the possibility of an invasion;

Here's what she said THEN, about invading Iraq;

Senator Clinton; Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts IS NOT A GOOD OPTION!



"What were her reasons for voting for war ??" Again, From the link above, from her speech on the Senate floor, From the PUBLIC RECORD.



Senator Clinton:

Today we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.

I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it, and I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.

I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion, history has proven our great dissenters to be right.

Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.

In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab states, and threw Saddam out after forty-three days of bombing and a hundred hours of ground operations. The U.S.-led coalition then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.

As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed, and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. And though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspections work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.

In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

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 Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.



"Why did she vote against the Levin amendment ? "

All of your questions are answered from the PUBLIC RECORD.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706220010

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&

In her October 10, 2002, floor speech on the resolution to use military force against Iraq, Clinton specifically explained why she rejected the idea of mandating that the president obtain approval from the UN Security Council before launching a military attack:

CLINTON: Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The UN deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The UN can help lead the world into a new era of global cooperation and the United States should support that goal.

But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto, on occasion, for reasons of narrow-minded interests, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States therefore could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.

In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve force against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.

[...]

If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply, but forcefully, calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving some nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose any Security Council action. They will say we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the United Nations when it does exactly what we want.

"Did she use the National Intelligence Estimate or the polls to make her decision ?"

Few senators read Iraq NIE report
Only a handful of senators outside the INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE say they read the full 92-page National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s ability to attack the U.S. before voting to go to war, according to a survey conducted by The Hill.

The low interest in the classified estimate, or NIE, could offer valuable cover to the five senators seeking the presidency who acknowledged during recent debates that they did not read the complete document before the pivotal Iraq vote.

snip

Of the 22 senators who reported reading the full NIE, eight are Republicans and 14 are Democrats. All but one Democrat on the 17-person Intelligence Committee in 2002 recalled reading the NIE: Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) told a campaign-trail audience earlier this month that he had, but later recanted. Edwards voted to authorize war.



It would seem that only a few Senators NOT on the Intelligence Committee read the entire report. While you may impune her for not doing so, you will have to impune everyone else who was in the Senate at that time along with her.

All Senators use a summary, and have aides who read and distill the literally dozens of reports that are released weekly from the various agencies. No one with any sense would contend that any Senator would vote based on,"polls", and only someone with an ax to grind against someone would insinuate it.



While most of your contentions here are mean-spirited, and culled from your prejudice against Senator Clinton, your, "questions", were useful in putting this oft-contended list of supposedly unanswered questions to bed.


You are IRRELEVANT!


Van

Journ Manty:
and what, exactly is the Bush solution to Iraq ?
I'm ALL EARS !!

Here's a solution from Huffington Post:
Lieberman Shrugs Off Failed Iraq Predictions, Now Claims ‘Road To Victory’ Goes Through Syria

INVADE SYRIA !!!
YES ! YES !!
Todya, Iraq
Tommorrwo, Syria
Next week, Iran !!

We've got Joe-mentum !!

Clinton-Liebermann '08
the future belongs to us

Bush created the kind of Iraqi society that he and Rove tried to create in America: A single religion  government based on corruption holding loyality above competence.  Bush set up the government in Iraq that excluded almost all Sunni, and has permitted the Shiite dominated ministries to operate their faith based government programs.

Wouldn't a better headline say "Levin, Warner pessimistic on Iraqi Parliment"?

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070820/NEWS07/70820030

What are the Democrats going to do when we win the war?  They are doing everything to make sure we lose, but their efforts are failing.

Before any solution can be discused we must pindown the fundamental problems in the region. One: The Iraq election was premature and tainted on many levels, but was championed by the U.S. as succesful so that we Americans as well as Iraqs are now stuck with a highly ineffective and sectarian leadership. Maliki may sound good in the press but one only need to look at who he has appointed and what his actions have accomplished (massive corruption, strong Mahdi army support by the goverment, innafective and devisive goverment) Most Iraqs now know that it was a mistake to elect Maliki and company and if given the chance would change there goverment... the main force standing in the way is the U.S. support for Maliki, the only reason I can see why we support him is that we dont want to look bad by declaring the democracy in Iraq a failure as it was from the beginig. If this will not be admitted there is no way to move forward in Iraq politics.

Sierra - "and what, exactly is the Bush solution to Iraq ?"

Establish a democratically elected government.

Sierra - "I'm ALL EARS !!"

Plastic surgery may be able to help you with that.

It is hard not to blame Maliki for all the malarkey in Iraq. His inability to get a united coalition -- and to keep it -- is one of the main reasons Iraq is in chaos.

http://OsiSpeaks.com or http://OsiSpeaks.org

Sierra, get back on your lithium

Today's winner is KY JD from BG, with "Maliki malarkey".  Good job, Counselor.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):