HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Sec. Clinton says that sh...

Mon Mar 14, 2016, 11:59 PM

Sec. Clinton says that she trusted W...

because he purportedly made sure that New York got the money that she requested for rebuilding after 9/11.

Hence, her vote to give W authority regarding Iraq.

So very many, many people got it right regarding W and his intent, but she did not.

Was it her supposedly mistaken assessment of W's character that allowed her to make the vote or was it the clouding effect of the money ($20 billion US according to the town hall) that she received from W on behalf of New York that allowed her to make the vote?






49 replies, 2648 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 49 replies Author Time Post
Reply Sec. Clinton says that she trusted W... (Original post)
xocet Mar 2016 OP
Punkingal Mar 2016 #1
AzDar Mar 2016 #2
Hoyt Mar 2016 #3
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #5
Hoyt Mar 2016 #12
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #15
Voice for Peace Mar 2016 #31
eggman67 Mar 2016 #38
BlueStateLib Mar 2016 #28
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #41
BlueStateLib Mar 2016 #42
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #43
BlueStateLib Mar 2016 #44
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #46
BlueStateLib Mar 2016 #49
revbones Mar 2016 #6
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #11
Hoyt Mar 2016 #14
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #17
Hoyt Mar 2016 #19
beam me up scottie Mar 2016 #20
Aerows Mar 2016 #21
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #23
Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #37
NWCorona Mar 2016 #45
Senator Tankerbell Mar 2016 #4
rhett o rick Mar 2016 #7
revbones Mar 2016 #8
theaocp Mar 2016 #13
Bonobo Mar 2016 #48
theaocp Mar 2016 #9
TM99 Mar 2016 #10
Aerows Mar 2016 #22
TM99 Mar 2016 #27
Aerows Mar 2016 #29
TM99 Mar 2016 #30
Kalidurga Mar 2016 #32
BernieforPres2016 Mar 2016 #16
karynnj Mar 2016 #18
Hydra Mar 2016 #24
Peace Patriot Mar 2016 #25
Uncle Joe Mar 2016 #26
Art_from_Ark Mar 2016 #33
jalan48 Mar 2016 #34
Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #35
Major Hogwash Mar 2016 #36
deepestblue Mar 2016 #39
hobbit709 Mar 2016 #40
Octafish Mar 2016 #47

Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:01 AM

1. Is this another gaffe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:02 AM

2. What the WHAT?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:09 AM

3. She did not say that. She did say she thought the resolution would let Hans Blix finish his study

to determine if Saddam had any WMDs by providing the leverage needed, and take appropriate sanctions if he did. Then, she said several times she was wrong because george war bush used the resolution to invade Iraq. There's a big difference in that and the BS BS's supporters are spreading. She also pointed out that Sanders had voted for regime change in Iraq a few years before, but I don't know enough about that to offer an opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:12 AM

5. She knew that giving W the authority that he would take advantage of it. She is personal friends

 

of his family. I don't by the excuse that W fooled her. She wanted the war and I believe profited personally, indirectly from the war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:17 AM

12. No she did not. The resolution gave him authority IF NEEDED. It wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:21 AM

15. Really? If needed as determined by the fucking Republicans? She voted to give

 

him authority to take action and he took action. If she felt she was betrayed, did she raise a stink after Bush invaded? Has she ever apologized for her part? Millions of innocent people were horribly killed and she supported the Republicons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 01:40 AM

31. Her innocence in this is transparetly false

 

unless she (1) was not paying attention (2) was ill-informed despite her position (3) she had and has really poor judgement '- both in her mentors and in her "hard choices"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #31)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:36 AM

38. All of the above n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #5)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:40 AM

28. Bush already had the authority

On Aug. 26, 2002, White House lawyers issued an opinion that President Bush could order a preemptive attack against Iraq without a vote of approval from Congress. The lawyers based their opinion on two factors:

1) The president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the military (Article II, Sec. 2)

2) Terms of the 1991 Gulf War resolution they content remains in effect today

3) Terms of the Sept. 14, 2001 congressional resolution approving military action against terrorism (S.J. Res 23)·

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStateLib (Reply #28)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:40 AM

41. She made it crystal clear that she supported the actions of the Republicons.

 

Did you listen to her Senate speech? The Ruling Class made billions off the war, probably trillions and millions of lives were lost or ruined. The least she could have done is speak out against this travesty. But she supported it and now is extremely wealthy and close to being the most powerful person on the planet. I was devastated that Democrats bowed before the Republicons Bush and Cheney when we needed them the most.

Her actual words: "Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction." She acknowledged that her vote would lead to war.

And these are the Bush lies in her own words: "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..." We knew at the time that that was not true. She promulgated the Bush lies justifying war.

And now she says her vote was a mistake. She isn't sorry for the damage and she doesn't even condemn the war. Her vote was a mistake with regard to her career.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #41)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:43 AM

42. The resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route

Hillary Clinton Floor Speech A.U.M.F. Use of Force Vote
October 10, 2002

While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.

Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.

If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, then we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStateLib (Reply #42)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 09:50 AM

43. Please explain your point. Are you trying to rationalize her speech and vote?

 

She acknowledged that her vote might lead to war. "Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction." But she cast her vote with conviction. She knew that Bush/Cheney would take full advantage and never complained when they did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #43)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:11 AM

44. If it was a vote for war why was Iraq invaded by Hans Blix and the U.N. Weapons Inspectors

October 08 - 10, 2002

Mr. KERRY : My vote was cast in a way that made it very clear, Mr. President, I'm voting for you to do what you said you're going to do, which is to go through the U.N. and do this through an international process.

Mr. KENNEDY :The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq.

Mr. BIDEN: The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force. But we must do this together with our allies. We must bring the international community on board. This resolution allows for a preemptive, unilateral strike, which I believe would be a huge mistake.

Mr. DODD: As I said earlier, I accept the proposition that we must deal with the Iraqi threat. I stand prepared, as almost all of our colleagues do, to support the unilateral use of force against Iraq but only if U.N. or other multinational efforts prove ineffective, or if Saddam Hussein is using them as a guise to rebuild his offensive weapons capabilities

Mrs. BOXER: This administration did not want to bring the debate on this war to Congress. We have many quotes I have already put in the RECORD on that subject. They did not want the President to go to the United Nations. Indeed, they said he did not have to go there; he did not have to come here; he did not have to do anything.

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.

Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.

Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.

I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.

Mr. BIDEN. As late as August 29 of this year, the White House counsel--the White House counsel--reportedly told the President that he had all the authority he needs to wage war against Iraq--there was a big deal about leaking a memorandum from the White House counsel to the world that Congress need not be involved, Mr. President. I had two private meetings with the President myself, where I made clear that I thought that was dead wrong and he would be--to use the slang on the east side of my city--``in a world of hurt'' if he attempted to do that.

Mr. DURBIN. Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone.

Mr. SPECTER. I commend President Bush for coming to Congress. Originally he said he did not need to do so and would not do so. Later, he modified that, saying that while he might not have to, he was coming to Congress. He initially talked about unilateral action, and since has worked very hard in the United Nations.

It may be that the practical effect of what the President is doing now, through Secretary of State Colin Powell, amounts to what was sought in the Biden-Lugar resolution, and I do believe the likelihood of getting UN action is better if we proceed to give the President the authority to act without UN support because if we said, as Senator Levin proposed, that his authority to use force would be conditioned on a UN resolution, it would be, in effect, an open invitation to the UN not to act, knowing the President and the United States, were limited from acting if the UN did not, and subjecting our national interests to China, Russia, or France's veto.

Mr. KOHL. The President has vowed to seek the support of the international community against Iraq, and my vote today is cast accepting and supporting that position fully. I Believe we should not commit U.S. troops abroad without the support of the international community. The costs are too great for us to take unilateral action unless we have no other choice. International involvement will strengthen our hand against Saddam Hussein, increasing the likelihood that we will be able to resume inspections and disarm Iraq.

Mr. BAUCUS. Last week, a bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators brokered an agreement with the President and produced a resolution that strikes a good balance between diplomacy and force. The resolution supports exhausting diplomatic means to disarm Saddam prior to engaging in the use of force.

Mr. JEFFORDS: We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States stands to gain much more if we can work with the United Nations to deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing military force, if necessary. If the United Nations fails to press for the disarmament of Iraq or is blocked in its efforts, then I would expect the President to come back to Congress for further discussion of the alternatives

Mr. DASCHLE: Second, the resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress and of the American people that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. Unfettered inspections may or may not lead to Iraqi disarmament, but whether they succeed or fail, the effort we expend in seeking inspections will make it easier for the President to assemble a global coalition against Saddam should military action eventually be needed. Third, this resolution makes it clear that before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the U.N. Security Council resolutions

Mr. BIDEN. Yes, with one caveat. He has expressed to me his ability to achieve a tough resolution would be enhanced by our not making it a two-step process. But he personally has told me and my committee he would consider and the President would consider a U.N. two-step process if they had to. The reason for my saying not two steps now is it strengthens his hand, in my view, to say to all the members of the Security Council: I just want you to know, if you do not give me something strong, I am already authorized, if you fail to do that, to use force against this fellow.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Madam President, the vote on the Levin substitute amendment is one of the most important votes we will cast in this process. I commend the Senator from Michigan for his fine work on this alternative. The Levin amendment urges the United Nations to take strong and immediate action to pass a resolution demanding unrestricted access for U.N. arms inspectors in Iraq. It also urges the United Nations to press for full enforcement of its prior resolutions on Iraq.

Ms. MIKULSKI. I applaud Secretary Powell. I think his is a vigorous effort to try to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, to send a message to Saddam that he should voluntarily disarm and let the inspectors in.

That might not work. But it is then up to the U.N., as the President said when he spoke to them, to take responsibility; to therefore authorize action to enforce their own resolutions so the United States of America is not doing this all by ourselves. It is not America versus Saddam. It should be the international community against Saddam because, I think you would agree, he is a despicable cad.

Mr. JEFFORDS. Clearly, we need to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The inspectors must have unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations, but the United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off to the side, secretly hoping that it will fail.

Mr. WELLSTONE. There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of appropriate military force.

Mr. BAYH. I believe this course presents us with the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us. We should make every effort--as Senator McCain indicated in his colloquy with Senator Lieberman and as the President indicated last night--to convince the United Nations and our allies of the justice of our cause. We are stronger when we act together, so we must seek a consensus for this course of action

Mr. BYRD. We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat.

We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will provide an alternative to the Lieberman amendment. This amendment will authorize the President to use military force supporting the U.N. resolution that he seeks, but then provides that if he seeks to go it alone, if he wants authority to proceed unilaterally, he would then call us back into session.

Mr. BIDEN. only disagreement with my friend from Michigan is I do not think we need a two-step process. We should go to the United Nations, and the President says we should go to the United Nations. We should seek the authority to enforce the inspectors in disarming weapons of mass destruction. And if he fails, my friend says come back and get authorization to proceed anyway. I am prepared to give him the authorization now.

NOTE: The Levin Amendment would of gave veto power over the United States to France, Russia and China. IWR was meant to send a strong message to Saddam "you better comply" and he did

Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the administration's approach--turning away from a preemptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force. I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.

Ms. LANDRIEU. The new U.N. resolution the President and Secretary Powell seek is our best chance to avoid a war. But the threat of force must be present to enforce a new resolution because Saddam only understands force. Again, Charles Duelfer testified before the Iraqis were perfectly willing to thumb their nose at UNSCOM because the U.N. had not authorized force to make Iraq comply.

Mr. KENNEDY. Before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now--and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
http://aumf.awardspace.com/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStateLib (Reply #44)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:33 AM

46. Why did she acknowledge that her vote might lead to war? You still haven't made your point.

 

Are you rationalizing her speech and vote? She restated the Bush lies: "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..."

These were transparent lies from Bush that she is telling the Senate. Many Democrats looked to her to keep the Republicons in check but she acquiesced to the Republicons.

If Bush betrayed her trust, I don't for a min believe, she has never mentioned it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #46)

Mon Mar 21, 2016, 09:26 AM

49. Barack Obama 26 October 2002

Barack Obama 26 October 2002: "I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity". He"s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:13 AM

6. Is that the current excuse? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:16 AM

11. Bernie never supported military intervention in Iraq, and Hillary is "misremembering" her support:



"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...

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, effects American security.

This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."


In March 2003 she fully endorsed the invasion:

There is a very easy way to prevent anyone from being put into harm's way, and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm, and I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something I have followed for more than a decade.

For now nearly 20 years, the principal reason why women and children in Iraq have suffered, is because of Saddam's leadership.

The very difficult question for all of us, is how does one bring about the disarmament of someone with such a proven track record of a commitment, if not an obsession, with weapons of mass destruction.

I ended up voting for the Resolution after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, talking with people whose opinions I trusted, trying to discount political or other factors that I didn't believe should be in any way a part of this decision, and it is unfortunate that we are at the point of a potential military action to enforce the resolution. That is not my preference, it would be far preferable if we had legitimate cooperation from Saddam Hussein, and a willingness on his part to disarm, and to account for his chemical and biological storehouses.

With respect to whose responsibility it is to disarm Saddam Hussein, I do not believe that given the attitudes of many people in the world community today that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for United States leadership.



She even claimed that what we did to Iraq was a gift:

Hillary Goes Orwellian on Iraq

Hillary Clinton may fancy she opposes the war in Iraq, but she has a funny way of showing it. On Monday night in Austin, she had this to say about what the United States military has done over the past five years:

"We have given them the gift of freedom, the greatest gift you can give someone. Now it is really up to them to determine whether they will take that gift."


There was nothing accidental about this line. She delivered it in response to two Iraq veterans introduced at a town hall meeting at the Austin Convention Center by her friend and campaign surrogate Ted Danson. She liked the line enough that she delivered it again a couple of hours later, at a campaign-closing rally at a basketball arena in south Austin.

"The gift of freedom" is, of course, a curious way to describe an unprovoked invasion and occupation causing hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths and leaving just about every aspect of life chaotic and fraught with daily dangers. To then lay responsibility for the mess on the Iraqis -- we did our bit, now you do yours -- is the worst kind of dishonesty, a complete abdication of moral principles. It's the sort of thing George Bush has said to justify his decision both to launch the invasion in the first place and then stay the course -- a course Hillary Clinton has spent many months telling primary and caucus voters she thinks was misconceived from the start.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-gumbel/hillary-goes-orwellian-on_b_89729.html


Bernie knew what would happen if we invaded Iraq and tried to warn others:


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #11)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:21 AM

14. Well, this says you are wrong. Fact is, she didn't vote for george war bush's invasion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:25 AM

17. In your dreams, that's an op-ed which is short on facts and long on bullshit.

How about you find something to prove that Bernie supported military intervention in Iraq and that Hillary didn't - because their own words prove YOU wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #17)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:26 AM

19. I've seen plenty of that here. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #19)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:27 AM

20. So you've got nothing to back up your claims. Again.

Why am I not surprised?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:27 AM

21. Hoyt, dear, I think you just misspoke. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:29 AM

23. Funny how I missed that in the article you linked to. She did vote to give

 

Bush authority to invade. She has since said her vote was a mistake but hasn't apologized to the hundreds of thousands that died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #14)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:36 AM

37. She didn't?!

And here I thought Steve was the only one at DU making that claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 10:18 AM

45. So she voted to authorize force before the inspection team finished

She should be disqualified do to poor judgment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:10 AM

4. She's still friends with W



The Clintons and the Bushes are family friends. As are the Clintons and the Trumps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Senator Tankerbell (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:13 AM

7. The Ruling Class is bipartisan. nm

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Senator Tankerbell (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:13 AM

8. It's all a big club, and we're not in it... Fortunately, neither is Bernie! nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Senator Tankerbell (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:21 AM

13. That's gross, funeral or no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Senator Tankerbell (Reply #4)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:34 AM

48. That photo makes my flesh crawl. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:13 AM

9. Something about being a man of his word

Or some such. Who the fuck does giving positive vibes toward W impress? Not Dems (who I would hope would look past the commentary AT BEST) nor certainly conservatives who wouldn't piss on her if she were on fire. Ugh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:14 AM

10. That sure sounds like quid pro quo to me.

 

It is like watching a season of House of Cards!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #10)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:28 AM

22. I'm pretty sure

 

that Francis Underwood is less corrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:39 AM

27. Lord help us if that is true!

 

Btw, we just finished Divinity - 2.5 months to get through the entire quest with all side-quests! We will definitely play it again

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TM99 (Reply #27)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:45 AM

29. It's freaking awesome, isn't it?

 

We need to hook up and play sometime, TM99!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #29)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 01:12 AM

30. We do!

 

I still need to get that Gamers Group going at JPR. I have just be overwhelmed with some financial and health difficulties, but I will do it this weekend.

We can exchange some Steam and Live Gold stuff through PM"s soon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Aerows (Reply #22)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 02:03 AM

32. Never saw the show, but I still know this is true.

Francis Underwood is less corrupt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:23 AM

16. I suspect Hillary knows that picture of her and GWB from Nancy Reagan funeral got out

She was very careful not to say anything against GWB tonight with Tweety.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:25 AM

18. The entire conversation was rather weird as it seemed

To distort the timeline. The real timeline would actually help her.

At the time of the vote, the inspectors were not in Iraq yet and had not been for 4 years. So, it was not that they were suppose to finish their work, but to start it.

She references the Bush Cincinnati speech where he promised he promised to get inspectors in. She did not quote that Bush said it was not a vote for war or that he would go to war only as a last resort.

She also suggested that Saddam Hussein did not let them go everywhere, but he did and even destroyed out of compliance missles.

All I can think is that she did not want a follow up asking if she voted assuming Bush would follow the process promised in the Cincinnati speech -though the IWR resolution did not have teeth to compelling him to -why in early 2003 she did not speak out.

Conflating March 2003 with October 2002, places more blame on Congress and less on Bush. Far more was known after about 5 months of inspections than before they started.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:33 AM

24. It was hard to follow all of it

But I got the sense that she was offended/alarmed that the question was not being dropped each time she threw a crumb out. Especially with the "Hey, I apologized already, next question!" bit.

I think she was scrambling to find something that would not give too much away as to why she sided with the Bush Admin and couldn't really come up with anything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:34 AM

25. I see. So THAT'S what she traded for the $20 billion to cement her cred in NY--

--the 100,000 innocent people slaughtered in Iraq, and the further horrors to the living in a country smashed to pieces and suffering complete breakdown of order and civil war.

But I want to be clear that she said this. And, sorry, I will not punish myself by wading through her smiles and giggles with Chris Mathews to find the only real question he asked her, according to reports--Iraq. (One of the Young Turks said that the only reason he asked this one tough question was to cover his own ass, since he was a 'chickenhawk' war whooper back in 2003.)

Did she say: She trusted Bush Jr. on WMDs in Iraq because he gave her $20 billion to distribute to her future donors in NY? (or words to that effect?).

True?

Now, on the face of it, anyone who trusted Bush Jr.--the most notorious lamebrain and damaged spawn of Lucifer ever to sit in the Oval Office--would have to be as naive as a newborn babe. (I swear, I don't think even a 1 year old would trust him.) OR, would have to be someone who was in on the joke.

Remember that vid of Bush Jr. in "Fahrenheit 9/11" looking under the Oval Office rug for the WMDs--AS A JOKE?!

So, Hillary was, a) as naive as a newborn babe, or b) was in on the joke about slaughtering 100,000 innocent people for nothing, or c) I suppose, someone who is just very, very, very corrupt and a congenital liar would simply invent trust in Bush Jr. as needed, for $20 billion in throw-around money.

a) is not possible. b) and c) could both be true.

Am I slandering this poor, abused, harassed, naive, female victim of Bush's war, Hillary Clinton? Or did she really say this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 12:36 AM

26. What's not to trust about George W. Bush? They counted the votes in Florida and recounted them

and recounted them and recounted them and recounted and recounted them....

Thanks for the thread, xocet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uncle Joe (Reply #26)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 02:13 AM

33. And even after all those recounts,

they *still* hadn't counted all of the votes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 03:09 AM

34. An example of poor judgement followed by another and yet another.

She doesn't appear to be Presidential material to me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 03:25 AM

35. In any other country, this would be corruption - and / or an impeachable offense

 

But in the USA, it's campaign material for Mrs "Memememe MY Turn!"

Praise Nancy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Betty Karlson (Reply #35)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:33 AM

36. ^THIS^

What you said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 06:44 AM

39. Ok

So many of us saw "W" coming 100000 miles away yet some didn't? Ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 07:03 AM

40. I wouldn't have trusted Shrub to manage a portapotty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xocet (Original post)

Tue Mar 15, 2016, 11:32 AM

47. Longtime Trust.

Kennebunkport, July 30, 1983: Bill Clinton, George Bush & George Wallace.



Wallace and his third wife, the former Lisa Taylor, meet with Vice President George Bush and Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton at a lobster bake at Bush's residence at Kennebunkport, Maine, July 30, 1983. The third Mrs. Wallace, whom the governor married in 1981, was 30 years his junior and half of a country-western singing duo, Mona and Lisa, who had performed during his campaign in 1968.

CREDIT: AP/Birmingham Post

SOURCE: http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/george-wallace/13/

Michael Beschloss says the photo's genuine: https://twitter.com/beschlossdc/status/275941914182828033

George Wallace did all he could to oppose President Kennedy and his administration's policy to integrate public schools, including the University of Alabama.

Something else important to know: Wallace’s running mate in 1968 was Gen. Curtis LeMay, who exhibited insubordination to President Kennedy during the Cuban Missile Crisis. President Kennedy, former CIA analyst Ray McGovern noted, exhibited signs of stress over the possibility of a military coup.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread