Clinton "not ready to co-sponsor" Reid-Feingold bill

[draft_mario_cuomo]

==Clinton was urged to co-sponsor a bill proposed by Senators Harry Reid and Russ Feingold that would cut off funding for the Iraq war by March 31, 2008.

"I'm not ready to co-sponsor it now," Clinton said, repeating her argument that Congress instead should focus on pressuring Bush to work with Democrats.

Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut is the only Democratic presidential hopeful to support the Reid-Feingold measure.==

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/04/15/america/NA-POL-US-Clinton-White-House.php

[Cooley Hurd]

1. Of course she's not ready...

...it takes a lot of time to run ideas through Carville, Begala and the assorted focus groups.:eyes:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2. She is "not ready" to offer a plan on Iraq either

Or a plan on anything of substance. Have you seen the "issues" page on her presidential campaign website? ;)

[primative1]

44. Not ready to actualy take a stand?

I'm shocked. One might think that as a US Senator and one also in the majority she might find that its time to be quite ready to actualy do something other than pander and posture.

[DRoseDARs]

3. She's not ready to admit her vote on the IWR was a mistake, so this is to be expected. n/t

[mtnsnake]

18. The two who apologized are the two biggest hypocrites for doing so

because each of them waited until the polls were telling them it was politically safe to do so.

One of them ran his entire presidential campaign on a war theme. His running mate co-sponsored the thing to begin with. All three of them, Hillary, Kerry, and Edwards are guilty of voting for the IWR and no apology will ever make it right.

That's one area that Obama doesn't have to worry about, although even he's being a little hypocritical for flaunting himself as the only one who's been opposed to the war right from the start, yet he consistently votes to fund it.

IMO, the only one who isn't hypocritical is Kucinich.

[blm]

23. Kerry was against Bush's INVASION from the beginning because inspections were working

and so was diplomacy, as per the IWR guidelines.

IWR would have prevented war withany other administration, even Reagan's. But Bush had no intention of sticking to ANY resolution no matter how it was written.

[mtnsnake]

24. "Bush had no intention of sticking to ANY resolution no matter how it was written."

Well if Kerry realized that, as you implied in your post, then he's a bigger hypocrite than I originally thought.

[Clark2008]

75. Bam!

Thank you for saving me the trouble to write this very thing.

:applause:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

77. Wes Clark on the IWR: "I probably would have voted for it."

Will you call him a hypocrite too?

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

[mtnsnake]

81. Trouble is, Clark did not vote for it, so he has nothing to apologize for

Doesn't matter if he could've should've would've. He didn't so he's not in the same ballpark and he doesn't have to be worried about being hypocritical. Besides, there isn't a hypocritical molecule in Clark's body, at least not that I know of.

[Forkboy]

92. Which is also why I don't give Obama credit for saying he would have voted against it.

Easy to say when you know you don't have to actually do it.

[mtnsnake]

94. I'm pulling for Obama but I couldn't agree with you more

While I do have to say he does deserve credit for speaking out against the war since its inception.

However, on the campaign trail he shouldn't be distinguishing himself from the other candidates as being the only major anti-war candidate (by virtue of him being against if from the start) if he's going to vote to fund it as consistently as he has. That is hypocritical and it worries me that he's going to get nailed on that in the debates by Edwards and Clinton.

[mtnsnake]

80. You are very welcome

:hi:

[Alexander]

84. I'd rather have a consistently anti-war candidate.

I like Kucinich, but any vote he'd get from me would be a protest vote - because I am somewhat less than impressed with his temper and governance when it came to the city of Cleveland.

I'm not particularly thrilled with any present candidate's stance on the war. I do know that if a consistently anti-war candidate with a track record of good governance stepped in, that person would get my vote (like, say, Gore).

But I'm uneasy about voting for anyone who either supported the IWR or wants to fund it now.

[HereSince1628]

4. No noticeable breeze blowing near the NY Senator?

Anyone know what percentage of NY'ers want the occupation over and the troops home?

[flpoljunkie]

5. Cosponsor Feingold's short and sweet bill, S.1077. To Safely Redeploy US Troops from Iraq

To urge your Senator to support Feingold's bill: http://ga1.org/campaign/iraq0407

To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq. (Introduced in Senate)
S 1077 IS

110th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 1077

To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

April 10, 2007

Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, Mr. REID, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. DODD, Mr. KERRY, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. HARKIN, and Mr. SANDERS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations

Rule

A BILL

To safely redeploy United States troops from Iraq.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

(a) Transition of Mission- The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).

(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment From Iraq- The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds- No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.

(d) Exception for Limited Purposes- The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:

(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.

[acmavm]

6. And she never will be either.

She'd actually have to take a stand. And not the one that pleases her corporate benefactors.

[mmonk]

7. No kidding.

Not.

[renie408]

8. But she is winning in 79 out of 83 state polls and will win a GE with no trouble

cause she knows how to run a campaign. So what does all of this 'issue' and 'stop the war' stuff really matter??

[skipos]

37. Win the GE with no trouble?!? What are you basing this on? Definitely not the polls

New LA Times Poll:

Giuliani 48%, Clinton 42%, CLINTON LOSES BY 6%
Giuliani 45%, Edwards 43%, EDWARDS LOSES BY 2%
Giuliani 42%, Obama 46%, OBAMA WINS BY 4%

McCain 42%, Clinton 45%, CLINTON WINS BY 3%
McCain 40%, Edwards 44%, EDWARDS WINS BY 4%
McCain 40%, Obama 48%, OBAMA WINS BY 8%

Romney, 37% Clinton 44%, CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Romney 30%, Edwards 50%, EDWARDS WINS BY 20%
Romney 31%, Obama 50%, OBAMA WINS BY 19%

Recent Rasmussen polls...

Clinton (47%) Giuliani (48%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (49%) Giuliani (43%) EDWARDS WINS BY 6%
Obama (43%) Giuliani (44%) OBAMA LOSES BY 1%


Clinton (47%) McCain (46%) CLINTON WINS BY 1%
Edwards (47%) McCain (38%) EDWARDS WINS BY 9%
Obama (44%) McCain (44% ) TIED

Clinton (50%) Romney (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 9%
Edwards (55%) Romney (29%) EDWARDS WINS BY 26%
Obama (51%) Romney (36%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (46%) Brownback (41%) CLINTON WINS BY 5%
Obama (49%) Brownback (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 15%

Clinton (50%) Gingrich (43%) CLINTON WINS BY 7%
Obama (48%) Gingrich (38%) OBAMA WINS BY 10%

Clinton (48%) Hagel (40%) CLINTON WINS BY 8%
Obama (50%) Hagel (34%) OBAMA WINS BY 16%

Clinton (43%) Thompson (44%) CLINTON LOSES BY 1%
Edwards (50%) Thompson (36%) EDWARDS WINS BY 14%
Obama (49%) Thompson (37%) OBAMA WINS BY 12%

[mmonk]

86. We have more than three candidates

and a while before then.

[skipos]

87. True but that has nothing to do with my post. nt

[mmonk]

96. In a way it does because of the polling you produced

I also understand your reply to the other whereby I don't disagree with you.

[renie408]

91. Right. n/t

[renie408]

90. You are preaching to the converted.

Sorry, I was being sarcastic and forgot to add the thingy.

I think Hillary is GE poison and keep saying so, only to be told that she is winning either 30 out of 33 state polls or 29 out of 34 polls, or ALL the polls or ....you get the idea.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

12. John Edwards on Reid-Feingold

"EDWARDS: Spokeswoman Kate Bedingfield emails, "I wouldn't say he supports Reid-Feingold. He supports defunding as a policy and applauds Reid and Feingold for putting it on the table, but the plan he supports is his own -- which would force a drawdown of 40-50,000 immediately and have all combat troops out in 12-18 months." UPDATE: That is to say, says Bedingfield, his only quarrel with the bill is it doesn't go far enough, but he has no problem with the methods."

The Edwards Iraq plan (yes, some candidates have plans to deal with issues...): http://johnedwards.com/news/headlines/20070214-iraq-plan/index.html

* Cap funding for the troops in Iraq at 100,000 troops to stop the surge and implement an immediate drawdown of 40-50,000 combat troops. Any troops beyond that level should be redeployed immediately.
* Prohibit funding to deploy any new troops to Iraq that do not meet real readiness standards and that have not been properly trained and equipped, so American tax dollars are used to train and equip our troops, instead of escalating the war.
* Make it clear that President Bush is conducting this war without authorization. The 2002 authorization did not give President Bush the power to use U.S. troops to police a civil war. President Bush exceeded his authority long ago, and now needs to end the war and ask Congress for new authority to manage the withdrawal of the U.S. military presence and to help Iraq achieve stability.
* Require a complete withdrawal of combat troops in Iraq in the next 12-18 months without leaving behind any permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq.
* After withdrawal, Edwards believes that sufficient forces should remain in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spillover and create a regional war, a terrorist haven, or spark a genocide. In addition, Edwards believes the U.S. should step up our diplomatic efforts by engaging in direct talks with all the nations in the region, including Iran and Syria and work to bring about a political solution to the sectarian violence inside Iraq, including through a peace conference. He also believes the U.S. must intensify its efforts to train the Iraqi security forces.

[mtnsnake]

16. So if Edwards doesnt support that bill either then why is Hillary the only one in your thread title?

[renie408]

19. Because Hillary cannot even bring herself to support defunding and has no plan at all. n/t

[mtnsnake]

20. Wow! So are you saying that Hillary is the only one of our candidates who's voting to fund it?

Amazing!

[renie408]

28. Nooo...I think I said that she couldn't bring herself to support defunding and had no plan.

At least, that's what it looks like to me.

[mtnsnake]

31. Thanks for re-affirming exactly what I thought you said. nt

[Alexander]

47. Reading is fun. You should try it sometime.

Did you miss out on renie's "she doesn't have a plan" comment?

Or maybe you are just ignoring it. Can't have anything critical of St. Hillary, can we?

[enough already]

70. Relax, Hillary is still having conversations about things

She'll take a stand. Right after enough polling data comes out.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

53. She can't even take a position on it

Isn't "leadership" the main selling point for her, aside from her last name?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. He supports the aims of Reid-Feingold and wants to go further than R-F

HRC does not even have a position on Reid-Feingold and no plan for Iraq (or apparently anything other than the easy political issue of "government reform".) Why is she the only one in the title? Read the article. The article was about HRC.

[bvar22]

33. Edwards CAN'T co-sponsor .

He is a Private Citizen and like the rest of us he doesn't have a vote.
Kucinich wants the Troops Out NOW and doesn't support anything that will prolong this war. (My position)

Obama? Your guess is as good as mine.

[BrklynLiberal]

43. DUUH!!!!!!!!! Gee you mean you actually have to be in office to co-sponsor a bill?

[tblue37]

10. She just can't stop triangulating. It's like a disease. (eom)

[Nimrod2005]

11. That's fine, she can take her time, enough time for us to defeat her at the polls!

In the primaries...

[here_is_to_hope]

13. And Im not ready

to vote for her.

[youngdem]

14. She's a coward and a sheep. She's just waiting for political consensus to be overwhelming

THEN, she will proudly come out in favor.

She is quite the leader from behind, eh?

:eyes:

Each day, I become more disillusioned with the MYTH of the great Hillary Clinton. I think it will become clear soon that many were enamored with her only because we long so much for the Clinton days that we are willing to hire his wife. Unfortunately, they are not the same person. (Just as I would be bad at my spouses' job and she at mine.) She is a fine lady and a decent Senator, but she just doesn't have IT.


She is a follower when the chips are down.

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

15. Senator Clinton has missed several moments when she could have spoken with clarity

and been the first to do so.

Imus's remarks are just one of many examples. I don't know if she's getting bad advice, or what, but where Edwards, Obama and Richardson, and certainly, Kucinich, are perceived as the drivers of their campaigns, she still seems to be a passenger, providing directions, but not taking the wheel.

She could come out swinging and blow everyone out of the water. She's been quiet on subjects that must resonate with her. I hope she lets her own ethics and instincts guide her in the future and really begins to speak from her heart. MKJ

[youngdem]

22. She's playing it safe...Playing not to lose.

And the surest way to win a game is halfway to start playing NOT to lose.

She needs to show leadership on ideas, show strength, show initiative. Unfortunately though, she has become a cautious follower, and her refusal to actually change course in Iraq is political cowardice at the expense of our men and women in uniform (and the Iraqi people).

[mtnsnake]

17. Love her or hate her, she is neither a coward or a sheep. nt

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

25. I should have added that sentiment. She's withstood everything the RW noise machine could throw at

her. She's shown she can fight and win.

As much as I express concern about the public discourse about her candidacy and as I look for her to take the lead, literally, I feel quite strongly that she will never allow herself to be swiftboated.MKJ

[blm]

34. The Clintons trashed the White House - How long did that lie last?

Swiftboating didn't START with the swifts.

Bill shouldn't have gotten impeached - - but he did - - because GOP controlled the media and the storyline.

Gore should have been declared winner in 2000 - - but he wasn't - - because GOP controlled the media and the storyline.

The Clintons didn't trash the White House - - but - - because GOP controlled the media and the storyline.

[jgraz]

63. When it comes to political fights, few are better than HRC

Unfortunately, when it comes to moral fights, few are worse. What a disappointing waste of potential this woman is.

[IndianaGreen]

66. She is just an opportunist and another corrupt politician, like Warren G. Harding

And she doesn't share our values, for we are strictly working class.

[The Magistrate]

79. Now That, My Friend, Is Just Plain Silly

Pulling names out of a hat for 'comparison' will never do, and you know it....

[Name removed]

83. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[IChing]

21. Clinton "not ready to close Gitmo

But would you close Guantanamo?

"I'm not going to speculate on that now. I think that's the kind of tactical decision that has to be considered depending on what the real facts are at the time. "

http://www.ireland.com/focus/2007/clinton/index.html

[IndianaGreen]

26. America is "not ready" to put Hillary in the White House

Closing Guantanamo should have been a no-brainer to Hillary, yet she fumbled the ball on this fundamental human rights question. Hillary also fumble a no-brainer regarding General Pace's homophobic comments saying that she would leave that to others to decide (if gays were inherently immoral).

[Tellurian]

27. America IS...Progressives, Liberals and Leftys

are not representative of the majority in America. The majority are thrilled to have Hillary as their president.

[skipos]

40. "The majority are thrilled to have Hillary as their president" And you base this on what? Your gut?

47% say they would "definitely not vote for" her. 22% said they would "definitely vote for" her. Which leaves 31% undecided. How are you getting "a majority would be thrilled?"

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/

Clinton 48% Favorable, 50% Unfavorable
(please note that "favorable" is far from "thrilled" and that 48% is not a "majority."
Edwards 57% Favorable, 35% Unfavorable
Obama 59% Favorable, 34% Unfavorable

http://rasmussenreports.com/Political%20Tracking/Presidential%20Match-Ups/2008DemocraticPresidentialMatchups.htm

Fav - unfav
57 - 21 percent for Giuliani
46 - 45 percent for Clinton;
51 - 22 percent for McCain;
44 - 14 percent for Obama, with 40 percent who haven't heard enough to form an opinion;
44 - 27 percent for Edwards;
44 - 47 percent for Gore;
22 - 47 percent for Gingrich (Woo hoo! Here is someone with worse numbers thab Hillary! Go Newt!)
For Romney, 67 percent haven't heard enough to form an opinion.

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1295.xml?ReleaseID=1019

I like Richardson, Clark, Edwards, Obama and others but can admit they all have weaknesses. Some of you Hillary supporters seem unable to admit that she has weak fav/unfavs and currently underperforms other Democrats in the *general election* (I am well aware that she does well in primary polls). While polls aren't the end all be all, you'd think with all of her money and name recognition, she'd be doing a lot better.

[Tellurian]

41. Your response is predictable if not pitiful..

at the present time we're looking at the Primary. Unless, in your mind's eye we can just skipit and go directly to the general.

[skipos]

42. How about you answer my question? Or do you have no good response?

"Progressives, Liberals and Leftys are not representative of the majority in America. The majority are thrilled to have Hillary as their president."

Please back this up with something remotely intelligent.

[Tellurian]

45. It's you're intelligence that is in question not mine..nm

[Tellurian]

46. Hillary Clinton Remains Dominant Front-Runner Among Democrats

April 10, 2007


Hillary Clinton Remains Dominant Front-Runner Among Democrats

Obama and Edwards close in second place

by Frank Newport

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- Sen. Hillary Clinton remains the dominant presidential front-runner among Democrats nationally, with twice the support as her nearest challenger. Sen. Barack Obama, former Sen. John Edwards, and former Vice President Al Gore are tightly bunched in second place, with all other candidates in low single digits. If Gore is removed from the ballot and his supporters' second-place choices substituted, Clinton's lead becomes even more dominant, with Obama and Edwards tied far behind.

These data were collected April 2-5, just as reports of Obama's first-quarter fundraising success were made public. The survey results suggest that while Obama may have had a great deal of financial momentum in the past quarter, it was not matched by any increase in voter support.

Basic Results

The basic trends over five Gallup Polls conducted among Democrats nationally this year are as follows:



The trend for Obama has been relatively static. The Illinois senator ends up in this latest April poll essentially where he was last January; Obama gets exactly half of the vote given to Clinton.


The table represents the preferences of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents with Gore removed, accomplished by substituting the second-place choice of the 14% of Democrats who supported Gore as their first choice:



Here the extent of Clinton's lead among Democrats becomes even clearer. Clinton is in essence the runaway front-runner, with Obama and Edwards tied for second far behind, with less than half of Clinton's support.

Bottom Line

The race for the Democratic nomination at this point is still highly fluid. Candidates are dropping in and out of the race, with others hovering outside giving no firm sign yet of their intentions. Clinton's continued dominance as the front-runner across the five Gallup Polls conducted so far this year (and for that matter in national polls going back to 2005) is therefore remarkable. There has been some movement from poll to poll, as would be expected, but to this date, no other candidate has challenged her hegemony over the process.

The first-quarter fundraising reports announced last week provided an additional quantitative indicator of where the Democratic candidates stand in the race for their party's nomination. Obama received a good deal of positive press for his ability to come close to matching Clinton's first-quarter monetary total. The latest Gallup Poll was in the field when these results were made public; future polling will show whether publicity about fundraising has an effect on rank-and-file voters.

As of early April, the data show that despite holding his own with Clinton on the fundraising front, Obama continues to trail her by a considerable distance in national Democratic preferences, as do Edwards, Gore, and other third-tier candidates.

Survey Methods

Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,008 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted April 2-5, 2007. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points.

For results based on the sample of 491 Democrats or Democratic leaners, the maximum margin of sampling error is ±5 percentage points.

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls


http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=27163

[skipos]

52. That data has nothing to do with what you said

"Progressives, Liberals and Leftys are not representative of THE MAJORITY IN AMERICA. THE MAJORITY are thrilled to have Hillary as their president."

You said that the majority of America would be thrilled to have Hillary as their president, and your data doesn't back that up at all. Further, if you mistakenly meant to say that a majority of DEMOCRATS are thrilled, not even that is true. According to the data you provided, a PLURALITY of Democrats are supporting her in the national primary polls, not a majority.

[skipos]

48. dupe

[skipos]

49. If you have no way of backing up your statement, just let me know and we can drop it.

I am not looking to fight.

[Tellurian]

50. You're not looking for constructive dialog either..

you consistently post matchups which is totally ridiculous at this point in time.
when you can stop hiding behind matchups, then we can talk..

[renie408]

57. I don't know what a matchup is

But do you think that "Progressives, leftys and liberals are not representative of the majority in America. The majority are thrilled to have Hillary as their president." is constructive dialogue?

And honestly, you pulled that out of your ass.

[skipos]

58. Not true

You said that a "majority" of Americans would be "thrilled" with her as President. I asked you to provide data to back this claim up, and you have given me none. I provided you with data that refutes your claim. I know that some Hillary supporters want to ignore the general election polls (where she is weak) and rave about the primary polls (where she is strong) but trying to dismiss me as "hiding behind matchups" is ridiculous. Then how about her favorable/unfavorables? Those are pretty bad. Or what about "definitely vote against" numbers, which are equally bad? Or the % of Democrats who say they wouldn't vote for her in the general election (20% last I saw)?

If we can't talk about polls, what else can we use to talk about a candidate's possible performance in a general election? Editorials? Gut? Heresay?

I am by no means saying that polls are going to predict an election in Nov 2008, just as primary polls now (let alone the day before a primary) aren't even going to be 100% accurate. Look at Iowa 2003.

What I am saying is that lots of money and lots of name recognition that yeilds
weak favorable/unfavorables
weak general election poll number
weak "would never vote for" numbers
is a *bad sign* that Democrats should pay attention to.
Maybe those numbers will change, maybe not.

My final question is... if the day of your primary rolls around and all the polls and analysis still suggest that Hillary is a weaker general election candidate than the other top Dems, would it effect your primary vote in the slightest? What if every poll showed her getting beaten by every Repub while Edwards and Obama won, every fav/unfav poll showed her with weaker numbers than Edwards and Obama, every "would you definitely vote against them" poll was worse for her than Edwards and Obama? An unlikely scenario, but would that effect your primary vote in the slightest? I am curious.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

55. You know the answer. They have no good response

They know HRC is unpopular among swing voters and will have trouble winning in the general election but they are willing to gamble on four more years of Republican because of their devotion to HRC. They are similar to the Nader backers who gave us eight years of Bush.

[Forkboy]

93. You're completely wasting your time.

[SOS]

76. But...

can a candidate win the Democratic nomination without a single "progressive, liberal or lefty" vote?
Not likely.
The "majority of America" doesn't vote in our primaries.

[disndat]

64. H.C. is a little

to the left of Joe Lieberman on the Iraq war. She just made a statement that she would keep our troops in Iraq as long as necessary to guard our interests. This could mean an endless war. Her money comes from deep-pocketed pro-Iraq war, like Rupert Murdoch who wants to establish communication dominance in the mideast as he has in China. I also heard some time ago that she warned Kerry that he vote against the IWR resolution, "at his peril" when this was introduced in the Senate.

[Hart2008]

65. Gary Hart warned them all to vote against the IWR in 2002

"April 3, 2003 | "I don't think they've shown a lot of leadership" on the war in Iraq, former Sen. Gary Hart, D-Colo., says of congressional Democrats. "They got caught -- they didn't want to be on the wrong side of the war. And when they voted for it, it tied their hands...I told them, 'Don't get into a situation where you have to vote up or down on his war resolution; propose an alternative,'" Hart says. "If the United States had offered that in the U.N. after Resolution 1441, the Security Council would have bought it. As an alternative to war it would have been very attractive. And it would have completely tied his hands."

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/04/03/hart/index.html


We are still cleaning up the mess.

http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.garyhartnews.com


There is no better candidate to run against on the issue of the war.


:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Typical lack of leadership from HRC. Why can't she express a view on Gitmo?

A vote for HRC is for nominee Gallup Poll. It is obvious she will not do anything the polls don't tell her to do.

[enough already]

71. I'd love to say this comment is unbelivable

Unfortunately, even as ridiculous as she sounds, it's totally expected.

[EndElectoral]

29. But she was ready to sign off on the IWR quickly enough...predictable

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. The polls were 70% in favor of the IWR

We know how quick HRC is to "lead" when the polls are overwhelmingly in favor of a particular issue.

[EndElectoral]

30. But she was ready to sign off on the IWR quickly enough...predictable

[paparush]

32. Clinton should say - "I am guilty of trusting my president and his staff"

I voted for the IWR because I believed that Bush and Company were telling the truth. I did not think my president would stand before congress and tell lie after lie after lie.

[Hart2008]

62. Clinton should say - "I gave the drunk the car keys. I take responsibility for my vote"

To those who keep saying Bush (the drunk) is totally at fault for the war:

It’s like giving car keys to a drunk
You keep saying the drunk shouldn’t have been driving.
I keep saying, “yes, but they shouldn’t have given the drunk the keys and they had to try to stop him”

Both are responsible in different degrees, but both are responsible for the resulting vehicular homicide.

You refuse to acknowledge the lesser degree of responsibility by the Dem’s in the Senate for the problem.

The founding fathers foresaw a President like Bush. That is why they gave the Congress to sole power to declare war:
”In questions of powers, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.”
-Thomas Jefferson

The Dem’s in the Senate who voted the IWR up placed their faith in a man, and unshackled him from the chain of the Constitution.

We are still cleaning up the mess.

http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.garyhartnews.com


There is no better candidate to run on the issue of the war.


:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[IndianaGreen]

68. Hillary read a 92-page intel paper on Iraq in 2002. She knew Bush was lying!

Clinton's harshest question came from a young woman who traveled from New York to ask whether Clinton had read a 92-page intelligence document on Iraq before her 2002 vote authorizing the use of force. Clinton repeatedly said she had been thoroughly briefed on that document and many others and that she believed she was voting to send weapons inspectors to Iraq.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/04/14/clinton_says_congress_should_pressure_bush_on_iraq/?page=2

[Hart2008]

72. She was briefed on it, but didn't read the report. Now soldiers die and she won't end it.

Coming from a corporate attorney, this is a lame excuse:

"I was thoroughly briefed on it. I was briefed on it," Clinton said repeatedly, as the woman tried to interrupt her. "I think it's such a difficult thing to go back in time and say what everyone was thinking.
"What I will say is I believed that what we were doing was giving the president the authority to put inspectors in Iraq. That's what we were told privately. That's what we were told publicly."
http://www.boston.com/news/local/new_hampshire/articles/2007/04/14/clinton_says_congress_should_pressure_bush_on_iraq/?page=2

:puke:

She never read the report, or so she says. Even after her alleged "belief" was proved wrong, she still won't change course.

Here's the advice the Senate Dem's were given at the time:
"I told them, 'Don't get into a situation where you have to vote up or down on his war resolution; propose an alternative,'" Hart says. "If the United States had offered that in the U.N. after Resolution 1441, the Security Council would have bought it. As an alternative to war it would have been very attractive. And it would have completely tied his hands."
http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2003/04/03/hart/index.html


http://www.rungaryhart.com
http://www.garyhartnews.com


There is no better candidate to run on the issue of the war.


:kick: HART 2008! :kick:

[IndianaGreen]

74. Why didn't Hillary complain when Bush forced the inspectors out of Iraq?

You see, it wasn't just the vote for IWR, but the failure to act to prevent war when Bush forced the inspectors out. Where were they?

They all danced with joy when our tanks entered Baghdad, and not once any of them questioned the legality and morality of the war. None of them joined Pope John Paul II in condemning the war, or in repeating his warning to Bush and Blair that if US and UK entered into Iraq, they would do so without God.

For people so eager to hop on the war train, they are now very gun shy about saving American lives by endorsing Feingold/Reid, or better yet, Kucinich's plan for a rapid withdrawal.

All of these experienced politicians rushed to war, surrendered our civil liberties, and are now incapable of making amends for their failures. They failed us all!

[SaveElmer]

35. What you left out...

"I think it's important for the American people to see the Democratic majority go the extra mile," she said. "We have to show the American people that it is he{Bush} who is being unreasonable."

[renie408]

36. I think they get that part. The less than 30% approval rating is a hint there.

I don't understand why not supporting a pull out shows people that Bush is unreasonable. Especially when the vast majority of Americans want the troops home yesterday. Every day that the Congress dicks around on bringing those troops home, more kids die. How do you think the people whose kids die between now and the end of the summer are going to feel if that's how long it takes for 'politics as usual' to run its course? If it were me, I would be standing on a street corner screaming my brains out about the Senators who didn't support withdrawal now.

[SaveElmer]

38. First...

I was correcting the mis-impression that the OP left that Hillary was opposed to the Reid-Feingold amendment...which is not a conclusion warranted by her comments...it was not an either or strategy she is advocating and I think her full comments are more descriptive and should have been included

Second, explain the exact strategy you have for securing 67 votes in the United States Senate for an immediate withdrawal of all troops...because that is what it will take...

The Reid-Feingold bill is not a serious attempt at getting troops out of Iraq, they know it will not pass, it is their attempt to increase pressure on Bush...it is a political strategy. Hillary's is as well...the goal is the same...

Hail Mary's usually fail...the short game usually wins...

[SaveElmer]

39. Duplicate

\

[draft_mario_cuomo]

59. More generic, empty rhetoric from HRC. How about some leadership, plans, and bills?

She can't even decide if she is for or against Reid-Feingold. Are the polls not back on it yet?

I didn't say she opposed the bill. Even worse, she is taking no position on it. What a "leader"...

[SaveElmer]

60. She is proposing an alternate political strategy...

Which is all Reid-Feingold is...a political strategy designed at pressuring Bush...you aren't delusional enough to believe Reid-Feingold will actually pass are you...?

Just the latest demand from the litmus-test liberals..."full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

[Doctor_J]

61. Like the big chip leader in a poker tournament, she will be taking

no chances.

[HuffleClaw]

67. waffling opportunist

she'll jump on the bandwagon eventually though i bet

[enough already]

69. How could she be ready....

....when she supports the war?

[Telly Savalas]

78. Why hasn't Obama thrown his support behind this bill?

[Greyhound]

95. Meanwhile, every morning 2 or 3 flights of F-18's and F-15's fly out

heading east. There aren't any flights heading west.