Iraq it's a mess thanks G.W. for nothing .

All you anti-war libs out there better start realizing that things are getting better in Iraq, thanks to the surge and unless you are prepared to bring in Mike gravel or Dennis or one of those total anti-war losers, the war is going to go on for a lot longer then you planned.  Even Hillary thinks the war is getting better and she is YOUR candidate.  When the leader of the democratic party says the war has changed for the better, you know it is a fact.  So deal with it.

Even if one province may or may not be seeing progress, I still want our combat troops to come home.  It is simply time.  Do not fund full fledged operations for FY08, and stand firm against the administration.  Enough already.

And as have been said alll along; we asks Biden's question. Then what?

What did Senator Clinton ACTUALLY say, back in 2002, on the Senate floor?

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!"

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

is hillary running as a dem or repub, it's hard to tell isn't it? I used to think romney was the king of the flip-flop, looks like hillary is trying to de-throne him, what a joke, you go girl, go away

What else did she say?


"And finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers who have gone through the fires of hell may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know that I am.

So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is NOT A VOTE TO RUSH TO WAR; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as A LAST RESORT. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."


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


Van

Hillary is very smart and by the way is responding to every slimy jab from the right with class. I have to wonder what McCain really thinks. Does he not know he washed up?

Hillary-haters Myth#1

"She'll do/say anything to win/get elected."

Yet she won't say she made a mistake and repudiate her vote on Iraq in 2002, when other candidates have, this despite the fact that it has caused her lots of criticism from the left-wing of her party. If she'll say/do anything, why not this?



Where are the stories to back up this lie/myth? Tales of the terrible things she did and the lies she's told in her election campaigns should be the stuff of legend by now, if there was any basis in FACT.

You will see the usual suspects repeat this accusation/slander over and over and not ONCE do you ever see an example. Where are the examples?

We will examine other myths as the usual suspects repeat them, and you can bet they will.

Van

I agree Van, what are these lies that Hillary has been telling?  Where is this dishonesty that all of you republicans are claiming about Hillary? I just wonder how, someone who lies as much as Hillary and with all of these so called high negatives, gets re-elected with 70% of the vote in NY?  

2 good posts Van.  I enjoyed reading them.

jerry, where is your proof that things are getting better in Iraq?  I have said this before and will continue even to my elected officials "The Military Can Not Rebuild a Country POLITICALLY".  The Iraqi government is on break and have not been able to come to any kind of agreement on any real tangible effort to govern their country.  Realize I said their country.  

You are the best Van. Keep cutting through all the bull---- and telling the truth. Some folks hate the truth.

Again, how is it flip-flopping if the Senator is merely noting some arguable good news from one province in Iraq.  What should she have said? "Oh, the surge is working, but I don't support it?"  Or, "they say the surge is working, I don't believe them?"  To say she's a flip-flopper is classic neo-con rhetoric with no substance or basis.  

Dont hate, people.Hillary rocks,period.

gezz realism and honesty "The surge is working"Wouldnt want to hear that but it is true on some levels ,any time you have a mass influx of troops and material things do look better,but at what cost.Can you maintain the surge with the troops you have,NO.Can you stop the enemy from removing itself from the fight and picking up someplace else,NO,and on and on has it helped the political situation,NO,so being honest and saying the surge has worked deserves praise not hoots and i gotchas,and being realistic about what comes next is what we need.Not quotes like "the insugency is in its last throes"(cheney06)or "we are winning this war"Bush 03 04 05 06 07)maybe if bush had been honest and fought like we are on the same team with a little realism his polls and standing with the american people would be higher,and people would fight this war like he needs it fought but lies and end arounds have made the american people not belive him anymore.SO hilliary was honest said something repubs should love her for and demos are angry seems down the middle ,nice place to be once in a while

thank you van the man

Great post(s) Van.

MK MO I can tell why can't you? I can not tell if you are , oh yes I can of course you are a repukelican!

Jerry you are so ignorant. First of all you have never served in a war and clearly from your comments you know nothing about one. The war in Iraq is in the worst state today than it was a year ago. The only thing the surge has done is given the enemy more americans to kill. The war is in complete chaos and I find it interesting the you are now accepting comments made by Hillary Clinton. What a wimp. You're just another spineless conservative who refuses to admit that the biggest mistake this nation has made in decades was to invade Iraq. Face it Jerry, the current Iraq strategy is exactly what Al Qaeda wants—the United States distracted and pinned down by Iraq’s internal conflicts and trapped in a quagmire that has become the perfect rallying cry and recruitment tool for Al Qaeda. So deal with that Jerry boy!

Has there ever been any doubt that the incomparable US Millitary equipt with the proper mission could make progress in any battlefield situation? Sadly, that is not the pivotal issue. The problem is not so much on the battlefield but in the internal leadership of Iraq and ultimately their ability to govern a peaceful, united Iraq. We can throw more and more millitary assets at the insurgent problem and make noteable progress, but connecting these activities to a stable Iraqi government is, at best, an extremely long term and expensive proposition. To perservere in this endeavor under the guise that our National security is in direct jeopardy is an argument that has never held much value. Certainly economic security is at risk if the oil rich Middle East is destabelized , but that is a world problem not just a US problem...it would be best addressed by the world community at shared risk and expense. If the world cummunity is unwilling to act in their own economic interest, than they deserve exactly what they get.

Jerry; July 06 US casualties 43, July 07 casualties 80.  400 Iraqis killed just the other day in a coordinated multiple bombing.  Areas that Britain is turning over to Iraqi forces are dissolving into violence.  Eye witnesses continue to report IEDs planted and sectarian violence perpetrated by Iraqi police and military.  60% unemployment.  We're buying lowered hostilities in some areas by throwing our lot in with the very people we've been fighting.  Increasingly soldiers and officers are willing to state publicly that no amount of military action will fix this broken country.  How exactly does this spell success?

If a traveler from another world came here and saw this country I am sure that they would be amused to see how this country functions. The majority of people is dictated to by the minority. The minority is corrupt and war like and the majority is docile and will not respond to things they know are wrong.

MK MO I can tell, why can't you?
I can tell you are a down right mean and dirty Hillary hating
Repukelican! So can everyone else.

This is old news, but lets keep in mind that this is not a war to go after bin laden and the people who attacted us. This is a war for oil, by two big oil men, bush and cheney. They lied and fabricated information to get their way. There are some politicians that voted for this war (Hillary for one). There are many Americans that were for this war in the beginning. We were all lied to and kept from the real facts.

ha!, hillary 's flip-flop speech about iraq makes me wonder where the heck did she's getting the news from ??all these candidates are a nothing but bored b.s.

Van,
Can you please back up the lack of leadership that Clinton showed recently in the Senate (what issues has she really ever lead on?) I am talking specifically her Iraq funding vote for which she provided no indication on how she would vote, waited until the very last minute to cast her vote until the outcome was clear. Where is her leadership here? Politics as usual.

As a veteran, I have a hard time figuring out why veteran's service groups are so supportive of Republican candidates.  While military budgets have risen dramatically under every Republican President since Reagan, the fact is actual dollar spending for veterans has not.  Reagan tried to tax veterans benefits in the same manner as he taxed Social Security benefits.  The per dollar amount spent on each veteran's health care has decreased as the amount of veterans seeking care has increased and, while the total dollar amount has increased, the availability of services has decreased. When I first entered the DVA system, all medical services were free (other than dental care)whether a veteran was disabled by war or not.  His/her service to their country was payment enough.  Now, there are extra enrollment fees proposed, co-payments for some care and prescriptions in place and unless enrolled before this year, non-disabled veterans who have not served in the Middle East become the lowest priority for care, no matter how old or infirm they are.  All of these changes have come under Republican Administrations who love to send young men to war but try to undermine funding for their care when they return.  

If you  leaders and rank-and-file of Veterans service organizations want to support war, that is your perogative, but to support the political party which has undermined veteran's benefits over three of the last four Republican Administrations (Elder Bush excepted), you are not acting in the best interests of the people you are supposedly serving.

Of course the surge is working;and if we put in more peole it will be even more successful.Of course th eproblem is that the more successful it is ,the less necssity for the various Iraqi factions to actually reach a compromise for national unity becuase after all the US troops can protect any area of the country that comes under attack from another gropup who disagrees with its views.In essence th esurge removes any incentive for any group to compromise.
You can find a lot of things in IRAQ but two things you will never find:
1.an iraqi patriot willing to die for his country as opposed to the supremacy of his sect
2.the draft dodging coward Dick Cheyney who has no problem sending your child to die for Halliburton
If the surge were really working why wouldnt Bush let Petraeus wirte th ereport instaed of the White House doing it? Nothing succeeds like success

Jerry-how about the phonies on the right? If all the dems are phony, would you at least acknowledge that the righties are just as phony? Shrub and Rove have sold this country and his party a bill of goods that the taxpayers will be paying for generations to come

Vanreuter, Hillary said....

1.  That money doesn't influence her.  

It is a lie because.....  

Money influences everybody.  If money didn't influence politicians then no one would give them any money.  Hillary wants us to believe that she is the only person on the planet that is completely unaffected by money and completely unbiased toward people who give her money.

2.  "...You don't always say what you think when you're running for President"

It is a lie because....

Well, actually that quote isn't a lie.  It is an admission that other things she says may be lies or they may not be.  It's hard to tell when someone thinks one thing but says another.

She said that at the AFL-CIO debates. You know when she got booed.  She basically told the crowd that you should lie when you are running for President.  If she wins the Democratic nomination that quote will come back again.  You will hear that more that the now-famous Kerry quote.

That quote coming from a candidate who already has half the people committed to oppose her is practically guaranteed to lose a general election.  

Spud, Mr Jerry has an incredibly weak identity and a highly inflexible mindset. Oh yea, just like our president. No wonder he likes him.

Gosh, Van...and she voted for it anyway.  All that experience (35 years) 0 judgement.

BTW she could have asked a cab driver in NY, everybody knew that fool was going to war.  Except the people with all the experience, "naive".

I`m tired of her flip flops....

The "SURGE" is working in one province in Iraq.
And that`s all????

Come now People, our brothers and sisters aer not just hfighting in one province in Iraq but many.
A nd to thiank that they ( BUSH Admin. ) will use this to solidify that the war will continue on Indefinitely.
Wake people, Al Anbar is just one province.

Did anyone even give thought to the religious village & people that took a BIG hit last week?
Hillary should just stop with all the BOLOGNA, she is a REPUBLICAN in Democratic clothing, she knows nothing but what they tell her. Let her take a trip to Irfag and find if this  is absolute the truth ( take BUSH & Chaneny with her)they all have the same way of thinking anyway.....


 

Bsb writes "This is a war for oil, by two big oil men, bush and cheney."

So what if it is?  What do you put in your car?  How do you heat your house?  How would Hillary handle the middle east if she was President?  Barack?  Edwards?  And please, lets not talk about alternative fuels.  There will be no alternative solution for decades that will provide the amount of energy we require today.

People that say we're at war because Bush and Cheney are "big oil men" are totally naive.  The problem is the same whether it was Bush II, Clinton, or Bush I.  Peace and stability in the mid-east is essential for our energy needs, both now, and for next 20 years.

Bsb - "They lied and fabricated information to get their way."

More moveon.org crap.  Hillary saw the same information, how did she vote?  Edwards?  Biden?  Yes, the poor Democrats got fooled by Bush.  The same guy the libs have been calling stupid since he showed up.  So I guess stupid people can fool Dems.  Doesn't say much about the Dems.

Van

“So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is NOT A VOTE TO RUSH TO WAR; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as A LAST RESORT. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed."

Hilliary was giving this power to Bush to “use wisely and as A LAST RESORT’.  This is a president on record as saying he already had all the authorization he needed to invade Iraq and was initialy opposed to this resolution being considered.  A president who was trumpeting the case for taking out Sadam Hussien.

At the time of this vote I knew Sadam Hussien had no connection with 9/11.  I knew Sadam Hussien had no ties with Al-Qaeda.  There was no doubt in my mind that if this resolution was approved George would invade Iraq.

But Hilliary thought Bush would use these powers wisely and as a last resort.

And now she wants my vote for president?

Darrius - You said: "It's hard to tell when someone thinks one thing but says another."  That is a complete misstatement of what Hillary said.  She did not advocate speaking contrary to what you think; she advocated keeping your mouth shut on certain issues when what you say may have consequences around the world.  She advocated being smart and responsible in what you choose to say.  Totally different than thinking one thing while saying another.

Short memories we seem to have-in the wake of 9/11, remember, being on the other side of the President was considered unpatriotic. Just the way that Rove twisted Kerry out as in 2004 through the Republican 527s

Van, Darrius is right. And the fact that she won't admitt that she made a mistake with that vote dosen't mean she's strong, it means she's just like Bush. Can't ever admitt a mistake. Do we REALLY want another president like this again?

No stupid hard right, Mr. Bush is clever and that is different from stupid. This clever politician conned some other politicians in both parties as well as people in other parts of the world with rotten horrible lies. So that makes him great? And I can see you still defend the big lier so what does that make you? A big dumb assed, lying hypocrite. How impressive you are! NOT.

Carrie- read the quote. She advocates holding back your thoughts when running for president. A lie by omission is still lying to the American people. Hillary advocates whatever she thinks is popular at that second.

Jerry, CC: "All you anti-war libs out there better start realizing that things are getting better in Iraq, thanks to the surge..."

No, J,CC…all you pro-Bush supporters out there better start realizing that you can't take a part and make it the whole. You can't take the little picture and make it the big picture. Yet still you try.

How many times have we secured a province only to lose it later? How many times has the following  sequence happened: 1) The good-doers oust all the evil-doers" from the "worst area in Iraq”; 2) the administration spotlights that area as a shining example of how the worm has turned; only to 3) have it collapses later into chaos? Do you think this surge is going to change that pattern in any real or permanent way?

How many times do you have to be told that our military is not the issue, or the question, or the problem or the determining factor in winning the war? When do you "get it" that this is a war that only the Iraqis can win? And the only way they can win it is politically…diplomatically.

And the really big question: Why can't you see that the insurgents, the militias, the whatevers are primitive people who do what they have been doing for centuries to settle disputes...not talk...not negotiate...not discuss...not compromise...no. They go to war. They kill each other. And the last one standing wins.  

Every time I hear the republicans say, "Well, you cannot deny that things are much better with Saddam gone," I have to wonder. With the area imploding and Saudia Arabia, Syria and Jordan on one side…Iran on the other side…all waiting to step in and proxy the war, the answer is probably no, not in the context of what has followed and what we can realistically accomplish in the area. It really doesn't matter when we leave...the militants have plenty of support, plenty of money, plenty of equipment and plenty of patience. On the other hand, the government in place to keep the peace and tamp down the violence doesn't even have the ability to control its own agenda. They can’t stay at the table long enough even to make small, lasting progress, much less control the evil-doers.

Great administration this Bush group is, buddy. Fine mess they’ve gotten us into. The more you guys try to defend and justify their governance, the more ridiculous your positions and arguments become.

It’s time to reduce the number of combat troops we have in Iraq, leaving a smaller footprint in the area. There is no debate that in the wake of an American pullout, Baghdad would quickly be dominated by Shi’ite militias. Why? Because they have remained largely unbloodied by the American campaign. But at some point, the Iraqis have to step up and be responsible for their own future. There are many who say that even with half as many troops in the area as we have now, we could still keep outsiders from further stoking the fire.

Gail you've been conned by the right wingers. The Clintons are left of center and most persons know this. Probably even farther left than that. And yes shes acting like a politician because she is one. What a surprise.

Good job Tired.  

Terry, a few weeks ago, I read an article which said one idea floated to Bush was to put all the cabinet ministers in a room and lock the doors until they came up with a political soulution. Fortunately, this idea was discarded as the government of Iraq is democratically elected. Elected with the backing of our government and pushing for certain leaders to be in certain positions. Funny thing about that, the people we are backing (anyone not connected with Saddam) seem to have their own ideas about the country they want.I still say all power in the government currently resides with Grand Ayotollah al Shistani.Can we get around that fact? I don't think so.

Mike A, Oceanside CA thank you for your wonderful post.

jerry, jerry, jerry - <sigh>.  As in the past, you are taking only pieces out of something that an individual has said, and using that to puff out your chest and say, "I told you so."  Hillary did not say that the war is going well.  She stated that there were some areas of improvement.  DUH!  When you send in an additional 30k American troops into Baghdad, the security will improve - again, DUH!  However, there has been no political progress, and there has been no reconciliation.  More safe? Obviously, with our troops.  Progress that justifies our being in the middle of this civil war? Absolutely not.  Iraq war going well - give me a break.  Blind, ignorant and closed-minded to the point of absurdity.  Keep cherry-picking your facts... that will surely get our country back on track.

Desmond, I recall seeing that as well.  To bad that did not happen and then they decided to go on break.  The problem we face with this fiasco is that people continue to buy that bs line of "fight em there instead of fighting em here".  Our borders are so pourous that if they wanted to they could already.  It is just shameful and dishonorable that thousands more will have to endure a life with severe disabilities or the loss of a loved one over what?  "Saddam went after my daddy so I had to get em for it"

Robert Catalont: As a card carrying member of the VFW, I find your accusations offensive. First of all, the military fare far better under republican Administrations, all of these so-called DAV cuts are laws that were passed during the Clinton years. You know Clinton didnt give one rats azz about the military. When bad laws are written, it is always the next administration that has to implement them. Im through I dont feel like arguing with idiots.

For as long as I can remember the democrats have torn each other to shreds during the primarys and then come together after a candidate is nominated. The republicans then quote some of this during the campaign. I am for any and all of the candidates and will support whoever wins. Some of you so-called liberals are doing the republicans work for them.
Remember some people think if you tell the same lie long enough people will start to believe it.
In my opinion Senator Clinton is leaning to the right in order to pick up some of the disaffected republicans. President Bill Clinton won by being a moderate democrat.

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