I'm no Hillary Clinton fan-- quite the opposite, Lord knows-- but could you guys actually READ her comments and not rely on second hand interpretations of selected excerpts thereof for your pithy analysis? Her meaning to the contrary of what you report seems pretty darn clear. Jeez, no wonder the general public has such a dim view of journalism and journalists. Do your job-- investigate and report-- and try not to be such shills for the Republican Party. If that's possible...

What Obama should have said: All the surge is accomplishing is putting more troops into harm's way, and Iraq is not one iota closer to being politically stable from it.  In essence the surge is like trying to keep a ship from sinking by putting more people on it.

I would love to see him square his "I don't think there's any doubt" that the surge would quell violence statement with Harry Reid's "that the surge is not accomplishing anything"

I agree with Craig seven month ago you said it couldn't work, which is it.  All experience no judgement


Craig Crawford’s Trail Mix: Clinton Blurs the Battle Lines on Surge Politics
By Craig Crawford   |   8:30 AM; Aug. 21, 2007 |   Email This Article
If Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York was signaling yesterday how other Democratic leaders might politically parse the Iraq troop surge, there could be a major twist in rhetoric coming.

Speaking to a veterans group, Clinton undercut claims, including her own, that President George W. Bush’s troop buildup would not work. “It’s working,” she said, but “we're just years too late.” Seven months ago Clinton had predicted that the surge “cannot be successful.”

Other Democrats, such as Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, are also softening their stance. This new Democratic strategy is about getting the surge off the table by stipulating its success while still arguing that it is too little and too late to make a difference.

Still, Clinton’s approach runs the risk of giving Bush the rhetorical high ground for the September debate. Agreeing that the president’s new tactics are working will make it a lot tougher to challenge his control of Iraq policy.

I do not believe that Obama has gone over to Iraq.  Senator Clinton has - several times.  He should have deferred until he had a chance to examine this further.  He should be keeping up to speed on this matter.  It doesn't inspire confidence.

I disagree with Craig...His trail mix has too many nuts in it and is his last name really Crawford? huh

THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT LEARNED FROM THE U.S. SENATE! THE ONLY THING THAT THEY GET DONE QUICKLY IS LEAVE ON VACATION; OR CAMPAIGN FOR PRESIDENT (2 YEARS IN ADVANCE) WHEN THEY SHOULD BE DOING THE JOB THEY WERE ELECTED FOR.

As usual Hillary just advocates for whatever she thinks is popular at the time, giving no thought to former stances she's taken ( see Lyn's comment). I can't wait to see how Van reconciles this one.
Obama is right though, putting more troops on the ground is naturally going to work for a little bit while insurgents figure their way around it. But politically, it makes no difference. Keep sending people with guns from our country into their country and all that will be accomplished is more violence.

BionicWoman- of course Obama has gone over to Iraq.http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3794382
The only thing not inspiring confidence is your inability to inform yourself.

If the surge has had a positive effect then how can a premature withdrawl have the same out come? If you make a mistake running from it never works. Face it, deal with it, correct it, and try not to repeat it. Bailing out on people that count on you never ends well. ie Vietnam

I think I'm going to trust an Iraqi war vet with a bronze star over all the chickenhawks in today's Republican party.

bionicWoman :

BionicWoman- of course Obama has gone over to Iraq.http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=local&id=3794382
The only thing not inspiring confidence is your inability to inform yourself.
Jennie Denver,CO (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 12:25 PM)

take that and one back at you.

Some people go ( unlike a Senator -her name we won't mention) to see the troops and not try to have their name splashed across the newspapers- is that why you didn't know

I think the one blaring, and alarming fact that this election season will show us is how stupid and uninformed most of the American public really are.  Pathetic!  First they will say Obama never went to Iraq, and ten other bloggers will get on hear and make their opinions based on this false information, and then I will get an email about it and everyone who is stupid and uninformed will take it as the truth, just like they did by calling him a Muslim.  I can't believe how many people will believe just anything.  

I don't know about you people, but my mother always said believe half of what you read and none of what you hear.  It really is the best stance, it forces you to look for....confirmation.  Do most people even know what that means anymore?

When the surge ends things will return to normal, iraqs killing iraqs.

With their own words, that's how;

Senator Obama-
“My assessment is that if we put an additional 30,000 of our outstanding troops into Baghdad, that that's going to quell some of the violence, short term. I don't think that there's ever been any doubt about that. And I don't think that there's any doubt that as long as US troops are present, that, you know, they are going to be doing outstanding work."

He seems to be saying that, while the surge has had some military success, the solution to the Iraq occupation has to be political for there to be any real success, and that we should bring the troops home.

Senator Clinton-

New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor US soldiers is "by beginning to bring them home," Senator Hillary Clinton told war veterans yesterday.

Seems like she's saying that, while the surge has had some military success, the solution to the Iraq occupation has to be political for there to be any real success, and that we should bring the troops home.

As both Senators have have had 69 votes related to the Iraq occupation, and diverged on only ONE (Obama voted to confirm Gen, Casey as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Clinton against), and as both seem to be saying exactly the same thing, with slight variation, to an audience that is probably not among their most enthusiastic supporters, any attempt to strike a sharp contrast between the two on this topic is the overreaching of those who know very little about the two, and their stated positions.
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/mar/29/comparison_of_hillary_and_obama_votes_on_iraq

Van

Jennie, Denver, Co.:  It is not necessary to be rude or to attack.  Okay, I may be wrong - he went once in January - but how many times has Hillary been there?  

Attacking and being rude will not get your candidate elected.  People are tired of these tactics from politicians (and their constituents).

Jim Nelson: It is actually correct what is printed. If you would have tuned into C-Span; you would have seen what that calculating winch said.

I WAS A DEMOCRAT, NOT ANYMORE, THEY TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF THEIR MOUTHS.  LET'S KEEP SENDING TROOPS AND MONEY TO THE CORRUPTION IN IRAQ AND SOON, THERE WILL BE NO ONE TO PROTECT THE USA.  THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TALKED BIG WHILE THE CONGRESS WAS IN THE REPUBLICAN HANDS AND SHOW THEY HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS REPUBLICAN PARTY ON WHAT EVER THEY DO.  THEY SAY IF WE AREN'T THERE, THEY WILL BE HERE, THEY ARE ALREADY HERE; ONE OF THE PILOTS IN 911 WAS IN THE USA 20 YEARS.  ALASO, 16 OF THE 19 WERE SAUDI ARABS, 1 EGYPTIAN, 1 JORDANIAN AND 1 EMYRITE; WHY DID WE ATTACK IRAQ; NOT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION; IT IS CALLED LIQUID GOLD SO THE TEXAS OIL BILLIONAIRES CAN MAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN EXCESS PROFITS ON THE BACKS OF THE POOR AND VETERANS WHOSE PROGRAMS ARE CUT DRASTICALLY.
POLITICIANS, SHUT YOUR MOUTHS AND DO SOMETHING; YOUR USELESS.

BionicWoman...I agree but first practice what you preach.

VAn..is that anything like their comments about using nuclear weapons or going after Osama in Pakistan ?  Didn't stop her from trying to draw a difference.  Of course please note Obama didn't jump on her without READING her statement first.  Kind of like reading the NIE before you vote to give someone authorization to use force.

35 years experience, 0 judgement

Van:
"As both Senators have have had 69 votes related to the Iraq'

Actually, Hillary's had a FEW MORE VOTES !!

Remember when she VOTED FOR THE WAR, Van ?
Remember when she VOTED AGAINST DIPLOMACY, Van ?
Remember how she's SUPPORTED THE WAR while it was popular, Van ?
Now, that's the war's losing popularity, she's against it !!

Hillary as weather vane !!
Van leads Hillary's faltering 'Army of Darkness' !!

Hillary Clinton,
15 years of dishonesty, scandal and national polarization

Democrats, WE CAN DO BETTER !!
Democrats, WE MUST DO BETTER !!
don't drink the Clinton Kool Aide !!

ms. clinton,will say anything she thinks the people want to hear. she probably didn't believe in this war, but was so afraid to be called weak on terror. i did not have all the information she had access to , yet i knew chickenhawk bush was lying thru his chicken teeth. any one who was hoodwinked by this corrupt administration should never win any public office ever again. anyone but weakkneed clinton and prettyboy edwards.

I think the Media has done a great service for everyone by not reporting any news about the War in Iraq.
We can all safely assume that no one is in danger,no one has died, and as Hillary says,the surge is working.
I just hope that when the White House fills out the Sept. report telling Congress,(who,I guess like Hillary,only get their news from the Media,where,ergo,  no News is good news)all is going going well.

Your headline on the homepage is incredibly misleading and should be revised. Clinton didn't say the surge is "working" and her remarks were much more critical. Stop creating false news just to make news.

I'm just wondering why Obama doesn't have the "horns" to go in front of a powerful Veteran's group like the VFW and say these things.(?)

van proclaims in all his faux wisdom "any attempt to strike a sharp contrast between the two on this topic is the overreaching of those who know very little about the two, and their stated positions."

van, although you seem to have appointed yourself some type of an expert on all matters concerning everything, people still are going to have they're own opinion and interpretation of political matters, who's correct? do you think you should decide? most people don't have time to do in-depth research on each and every statement, someone that can devote those kind of hours to a political blog are normally doing it for hire, hillary has been a political insider her entire adult life, does that in itself prove unquestionably that she is corrupt and owned by the pacs and lobbyists, no, but it's probably proof enough for the average voter to suspect she is, so facts sometimes can be determined by circumstantial evidence, you and I both know hillary can't win the general election, and all the slick twisting of your alleged facts ain't going to change that chief, that’s why I believe you want the hillary nominated, because you know that will ensure your good repub candidate gets elected, hell hillary has the same agenda as the repub candidates fiancé the wealthy at the less fortunate’s expense

Lyn....Obama has the luxury of not being in The U.S. Senate from the State that was attacked on 911, when that vote took place. (Which is just another reason why he's too inexperienced.)
Sierra.....what "national polarization" has Hillary engaged in or caused? That is absolutely laughable! (Next time you should really look up the meaning of a word before you use it in such a manner.)
It is people like you YOU and Lyn who are polarizing the debate with regard to whom the Democratic candidate will be. (I'm waiting for someone to say that those of us who don't support Obama are "racists." That is surely coming soon.)
As for any Clinton Kool Aid.....I'd gladly drink that, before I drank any E.O.J.! (Extremeist Obama Juice)

"most people don't have time to do in-depth research on each and every statement, someone that can devote those kind of hours to a political blog are normally doing it for hire."

And you sir, appear to be here more than almost anyone.
Care to comment?

Van

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.

You have posted the same crap FIVE times since. One can only assume that you can't read, or don't really care about anything other than your irrational hatred.



"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.





Van

I am so tired of hearing how Clinton voted for the war, etc., and Oboma did not. First, has anybody ever considered that Clinton as a New York senator was listening to her constituency to go to war? Let’s not forget that 911 happened in Hillary’s state and the fever pitch regarding the attacks was high to say the least. Second, Bush lied. Enough said. Third, Obama has it pretty easy to say that he didn't support the war since he wasn't in the senate at the time. The truth is that if Obama had been a senator from New York at the time that it is most likely that he would have also backed the war. I really don’t understand the attacks on Hilary from fellow democrats. Yes Clinton is a pragmatist and she is certainly a centrist, but she has fought the good fight against the republican hacks and she deserves more respect than she is given from her own party.

Lyn - I know I am wasting my breath because you see evil behind every corner with Hillary, to the point where I don't think you can give her credit for anything.  But that aside, here goes nothing.

When the surge was first announced, Hillary did not support it.  It happened anyway.  In reading her statements to the VFW, I don't see anywhere that she said it was a good idea.  She said it is working in some areas, and she gave an example of an area in which it has made a difference.  She also said that it is too little too late...which, to me, indicates that she does not support it.  She can, however, recognize that it may be doing some good in some places.  Should she pretend that it has not done any good at all anywhere in Iraq just because you want it to be a complete and total failure?  I don't think so.

Which brings me to my next point, and I said this earlier.  Support for the surge is not the popular position to take.  You and several others claim 1) that Hillary is supporting the surge with her comments and 2) that Hillary only says what is popular.  Oops.  I guess you have to choose.  Does she support the surge or does she only say what is popular?  

I even see Ms Clinton dancing around while sleeping. If she is chosen as the presidential candidate, she will definitely fail. Remember she has the most unfavorable rating, which means less democratic supporter will go for vote and more republican will go to vote her opponent. Also she is the most inconsistent candidate. A definite disaster. Go for someone else….

Who cares if their surge is working -which its not, all my brother wants as my support while he finishes his time in Iraq is to chat once in a while and sneak him some contraband.  

My former unit - the 2/14 inf 10MD has been to afghanistan for one and iraq for 3 plus tours now since the beginning of the 5.9 year old GWOT.  

The army is streched so thin that now the pentagon strategy is to break units up, detach, attach and disperse troops down to battalion and sometimes company level in Iraq so that it looks like we are all over the place, and pretend we are still giving the troops the amount of stateside time they should have.  The result is a thin veneer of highly motivated troops - with no home life - that hold very little ground and have no protection from you basic cowardly thugs.  If this were a military operation (aka WAR) and not the "Police Action" that it is, you would have units that support each other, interlocking fields of fire, and support units that could do more than guard convoys.

Its pathetic how our military can't even do its own chores anymore.  The vehicle and weapons maintenance is farmed out to the highest sole source bidder, body armor is second rate and the rifle we carry has been the worst in the world since the 60's - change the shape and attachments if you want - it still sucks.

Stay with the surge if you want - but that means start the draft now, take kids from the entire cross section of the US economy (starting with children of the Congress), get the number up to 500,000+ more like the force that was pulled out of Iraq in 91.

A draft helps more than just numbers of troops, it also helps the military "keep it REAL", because a draftee has no reservations about sounding off.

Read Gen Patreas "Counter-insurgency" manual he tried to steal all the best stuff from Col Hackworth and some other old soldiers, but the manual is already outdated.  The occupier cannot act as the law enforcement branch of a infant-puppet government, that gives the insurgency too much legitimacy.  Until we can prove we are leaving and that we are letting Iraq control their own Oil, we will be the bad guys.

If we had spent 1/4 of the amount we have on this war, we could have come up with enough alternatives to put Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and other oil rich contries in the poor house.

"Obama has the luxury of not being in The U.S. Senate from the State that was attacked on 911, when that vote took place. (Which is just another reason why he's too inexperienced.)"

To paraphrase Obama, Cheney and Rumsfeld have more experience than most Washington insiders yet they gave pretty bad advice to Bush.

President Clinton had no experience before his first term.

This reteric goes on and on. The war involves so many issues that my head spins.  One point that irritates me is that my son is there fighting in Iraq and the people we are helping to protect, ARE TAKING A VACATION. Now what does that tell you. It tells you we are doing all the fighting WHILE THEY GO ON VACATION. Maybe they could take a break from all their hard decision making and go outside the Green Zone and cover my son's butt! What is next for Bush. A surge now..then what. After the surge, he'll have another catch phrase idea and it will just go on longer. Even Petraias says that the military will not settle this problem. They said they didn't have a "Plan B." Once the "surge" is over, we are still there babysitting.  Michael Ware, who has been embedded there for CNN for years, says the Iraqi's are just waiting until we leave so they can continue fighting. I want to say this much; if you want this war, you send YOUR son there! I am 100% for the soldiers and 100% against the war. Bring my son HOME! All this is is a trophy for Bush. We need "true statesmen" to stand up, despite their personal agendas and party lines and say enough is enough. As Americans, we see a divide that is almost 50/50 in our two parties and we ALL want our kids home. YES KIDS! As our politicians argue, it leaves us at a stand-still. In the meantime, America's finest are dying. It is now over 3,700 of our warriors killed and thousands maimed for life. ONE VITAL THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT EACH SOLDIER KILLED, IS SOMEONE'S CHILD, MOTHER, FATHER, BROTHER, SISTER... So whether it be Obama or Clinton..we have to come home. Right now, none of them are listening to us. They want to be president.

Why are you guys talking about past merits. What matters is now and I'm with Lyn. Clinton while I applaud her efforts, is very much a political animal and her comments contradict her past statements and can have the effect of bolstering Bush's own positions. Obama is correct on his assessment and he is on board with the rest of the Dem congress. Their stance is valid and avoids any strawmen the GOP may attempt by daring the Dems to say the surge has "not worked". But military solutions is not a permanent solution...and it is a limited resource.

Here's how Obama's "no doubt it's cutting down some of the violence" statement hooks into Reid's "it's doing nothing" statement.  The surge is playing whack-a-mole with an enemy that will pull back until the Americans decide they've pacified an area, and go whack a mole somewhere else...while the enemy in the first area comes back again.  It "no doubt" does help, for about a minute, then it's fratricide-as-usual.  Which means it's doing nothing. It's a useless exercise that will only get Americans killed for a people who don't give a rat's ass about the Americans dying for them.

Van R Shearer and Carrie keep it up! Keep cutting through the lies and crap. Way to go.

Van,you are my hero,keep writing.

YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING -- you have my attention. Please tell me what you advise our politicians to do besides shutting their mouths?

nuanced

Carrie, you might want to read a little closer. Clinton didn't say anything about the surge. She was commenting on al Anbar.

One has nothing to do with the other.

By the way, I think what she said is exactly right. The difference isn't the numbers of troops as much as the tactical focus, and it is showing some positive results.

vanreuter:
Hillary should explain why she supported the war, NOW!!
Don't regurgitate her meaningless rhetoric from 2002

EXPLAIN NOW, why did you vote for the War ?
What was your thought process, Hillary ?

You displayed HORRIBLE judgment in 2002
Can you assure the voters that you won't screw up again ?
You displayed a total lack of wisdom during the most significant vote of you 'career' !!
What have you learned from your monumental mistakes ?

Will you have a 'dialog' with the American people ?
Or are you just going to cover up your mistakes ?
Will you just have your minions try to smear your opponesnts and any dissenters, Hillary ?

Merle:
Who does the Religious right hate ?
Who do social conservatives hate ?
Hillary !!
Maybe is her dishonesty and deceitfulness !!
Republicans will accept lying from other Republicans, but not from Democrats
Why do you think she has the highest negatives of any candidate ?

Merle, it was said that Hillary campaigns like Bush
Can you deny it ?
She campaigns like Bush
She lies about her record (i.e. Iraq, taking nukes off the table)
Then, she lies about other candidates.
She has her mouthpiece attack Obama

Carl Bernstein's book said she was deceitful, vindictive, and vengeful !!
Merle, other than that, she's really lovable.

A DC insider who works for the special interests and the lobbyists, Pay to play, Business loves Hillary, Wal Mart board member, pro-NAFTA, pro-off shoring American jobs ....

Is that polarizing enough for you, Merle ?

Sierra - do you eat and breath, or is hating Hillary life-sustaining for you?

vanreuter, NY NY / so you don't deny take'in a little cash from the repub's is what your saying, I ain't here near as much as you champ, hell it would take me half a day just to dream-up one of your posts, your most defiantly more imaginative than many, and more the deceptive than most, hang in there maybe you can get hillary nominated so she can hand the election over to rudy like you lust for so, good luck, I think I will vote for edwards since I really don't feel the same as you about rudy

R. Shearer, Phoenix, AZ:
'has anybody ever considered that Clinton as a New York senator was listening to her constituency to go to war?'

R Shearer, you NAILED IT !! EXACTLY !!
Hillary was a little cork, bobbing on the tide of public opinion.

So, if war is popular, Hillary is for war
When the war turns bad, Hillary's against the war
Is she a LEADER or a FOLLOWER ?
Hillary was just worried about 'positioning' herself for a Presidential run !!
Is she a LEADER or a FOLLOWER ?
Does she have CORE VALUES or POLITICAL CUNNING ?

You set the bar real low for leadership, R Shearer

the surge isn't working as evidence of the 300 killed last week in anwar province.  The surge just pushes the violence else where. Like a man who is beating his wife will stop when the cops show up on his doorstep but what happens when the cops leave.

Can't win the General.

I love people calling New York "her state" in reference to Hillary Clinton. She's a carpet bagger. She went there, not because she loves the place or because it's a good place to retire, she went there to get into the Senate and from there the Presidency. She could have done the same thing from Arkansas, but then again, who'd vote for a politician from Arkansas to be President?

She's a conniving, evil, woman who operates sans a conscience.

".....President Clinton had no experience before his first term.
Larry, Baltimore MD (Sent Tuesday, August 21, 2007 2:33 PM)....."

WRONG! Clinton was a a former State Attorney General, and a multiple-term GOVERNOR of Arkansas.
Big difference between that, and a former State Assemblyman, with two years of experience in The U.S. Senate.
Sorry Obama supporters...not enough on the resume'.

surge this!

Obama in 2002

"I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings."

Now Hillary talks about experience?  Who cares how experienced she is.  If Obama could have got it so right - amazingly so - why didn't Clinton?

She voted for the war = she is not fit the Democratic nomination when the choice is someone who shows so much better judgment.

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