Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Doesn't HILLARY's voting for the IRAQ WAR and CLUSTER BOMBS worry her voters?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:28 PM
Original message
Doesn't HILLARY's voting for the IRAQ WAR and CLUSTER BOMBS worry her voters?
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 08:31 PM by bambino
At every turn it would seem that Mrs Clinton follows Bush and votes in the warmonger mode to appear 'tough' but do her voters know this? Have any been polled? What if they were shown the horrific events of innocent children missing limbs and being blown to bits by cluster bombs? What sort of people are they who would support her on this? Mrs Clinton bleats that she would bring the troops home but as her voting record has shown she can no longer be trusted. This is a more important topic than whether someone copies your speech?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
dchill Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
1. Nope.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Windy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:29 PM
Response to Original message
2. No, but you think that I would. I don't get it either!
are they not paying attention?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunder rising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
3. Well you know she hoped it wouldn't pass. Who'da thunk? Oh well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
4. Apparently not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:31 PM
Response to Original message
5. Only when it's put into caps
:scared: . . . not really.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
6. Hell no! They don't give a shit.
Especially those DUers who support her.

As long as the queen has her throne, the rest will "take care" of itself.

Think back at the wonderful 1990s! NAFTA, Welfare reform, The Telecommunications Act, 800,000 Dead Rwandans, impeachment, bankruptcy reform! Remember how fun it all was? :sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fascisthunter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. So True...
I've learned a lot about politics in general the last several years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. I remember I was in despair over Rwanda
but nobody did anything about it! Talking about almost 1 million people slaughtered!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #11
23. Oh...but those were to "good Times".......
along with losing congress that same year.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. No, because I've read the text of her speech on casting her vote and Hans Blix also credits ...
it with helping the UN get inspectors back in...until GWB made them leave.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LordJFT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:44 PM
Response to Reply #7
17. what about the cluster bombs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JTFrog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #7
22. You mean this text:


http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0303-23.htm

See Hillary Run (from Her Husband's Past on Iraq)
by Scott Ritter

Senator Hillary Clinton wants to become President Hillary Clinton. "I'm in, and I'm in to win," she said, announcing her plans to run for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 Presidential election. Let there be no doubt that Hillary Clinton is about as slippery a species of politician that exists, one who has demonstrated an ability to morph facts into a nebulous blob which blurs the record and distorts the truth. While she has demonstrated this less than flattering ability on a number of issues, nowhere is it so blatant as when dealing with the issue of the ongoing war in Iraq and Hillary Clinton's vote in favor of this war.

This issue won't be resolved even if Hillary Clinton apologizes for her Iraq vote, as other politicians have done, blaming their decision on faulty intelligence on Iraq's WMD capabilities. This is because, like many other Washington politicians at the time, including those now running for president, she had been witness to lies about Iraq's weapons programs to justify attacks on that country by her husband President Bill Clinton and his administration.

"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," Senator Clinton said at the time of her vote, in a carefully crafted speech designed to demonstrate her range of knowledge and ability to consider all options. "I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998."

Hillary would have done well to leave out that last part, the one where her husband, the former President of the United States, used military force as part of a 72-hour bombing campaign ostensibly deemed as a punitive strike in defense of disarmament, but in actuality proved to be a blatant attempt at regime change which used the hyped-up threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction as an excuse for action. Sound familiar? While many Americans today condemn the Bush administration for misleading them with false claims of unsubstantiated threats which resulted in the ongoing debacle we face today in Iraq (count Hillary among this crowd), few have reflected back on the day when the man from Hope, Arkansas sat in the Oval Office and initiated the policies of economic sanctions-based containment and regime change which President Bush later brought to fruition when he ordered the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.

...much more at link

Scott Ritter served as a former Marine Corps officer from 1984 until 1991, and as a UN weapons inspector in Iraq from 1991 until 1998. He is the author of several books, including "Iraq Confidential" and "Target Iran". He also co-authored "War on Iraq" with William Pitt.



And she's not sorry for her war vote either:



"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," Mrs. Clinton told an audience in Dover, N.H., in a veiled reference to two rivals for the nomination, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
31. I don't think I have heard a straight answer from her regarding this
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 11:00 PM by bambino
I think people have short memories
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 03:32 AM
Response to Reply #31
36. and you won't......
Hillary supporters too busy for that!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:39 PM
Response to Original message
9. No more than Obama
not bothering to show up for
the Kyl-Lieberman vote his
supporters continually throw
out there. I can understand
him not showing up to not vote
against his mentor, who he does
in fact support...
"Some at Thursday's dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman's success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the "elephant in the room" but praising Lieberman's intellect, character and qualifications.
"The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I'm going to go ahead and say it," Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
"I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf," he said."
www.noseconenews.blogspot.com/2007_09_01_archive.html

Maybe his support of Lieberman explains his
wanting to reach across the aisle so much.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LordJFT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. how about Hillary not bother to show up for the telecomm immunity bill
even though she was campaigning in D.C. that day? And it's hilarious how you guys keep bringing up his support of Lieberman while ignoring the fact that A) Hillary supported Lieberman too and B) NED LAMONT, Lieberman's opponent has endorsed Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 09:27 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. Just pointing out that both sides
overlook things about their candidate.

Remember Obama saying this, "So those are top priorities. But my other top priority is making sure that we reframe the debate on civil rights and civil liberties in this country. I have been a consistent critic of the Patriot Act." in 2004 in an interview for The Windy City Times by Traci Baim. Then he voted for it. Flip. Flop.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LordJFT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Fact check, not a flip-flop and here's what he actually said about the reauthorization
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. He still voted FOR it
regardless of how he explains
his vote. Why not take a stand?
The fact that he cannot vote 'present'
seems to force him to compromise
and only take a stand on votes where
he knows his one vote will not make
the difference.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LordJFT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #30
33. If you read it you'd see that he voted for it only because it contained three key changes from the
original version, which were based on a bill Obama co-sponsored. So it is not a flip-flop from his opposition to the earlier bill. The link also points out that he joined in the filibuster of Bush's version of the bill, which was close to the original version.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zabet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 12:17 AM
Response to Reply #33
35. The Patriot Act needed to be repealed. Period. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #35
41. ITA
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cloud75 Donating Member (737 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
10. Not as much as NObama's vote for Cheney's energy plan.
or his vote on the patriot act or his votes on funding for the war or his in-action to impeach bush/cheney.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dailykoff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:41 PM
Response to Original message
12. I think the core of her supporters WANT the war exapanded,
particular to Iran. Don't expect them to admit it here though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:42 PM
Response to Original message
13. No, but I believe the latest revelations
on her very poorly run campaign are causing some to have buyer's remorse and that's completely understandable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
14. I hate the Iraq war, and this bothers me about Hillary.
However, I blame the war on Bush.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OHdem10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
15. Not at all. We are realists. We know how DC works.
Hillary offers much more than the war arguments. Understanding
how DC works, I have long ago resolved that war vote. We are
there now. She will do her best to get us out. That is all
we can ask of any candidate.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:46 PM
Response to Reply #15
19. but will she get us out
if McCain wants to stay there so will she.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
16. Bill Clinton ordered more U.S. military interventions than any other post-WWII
Tomorrow's Neocon Today
Why Clinton II wouldn't offer much change from Bush II

Radley Balko | October 19, 2007

... In fact, the L.A. Times reported last week that Clinton has refused to commit even to pulling U.S. troops from Iraq by 2013, which, if elected, would be the end of her first term. TV journalist Ted Koppel recently told NPR that Clinton has admitted the U.S. would still have troops in Iraq at the end of her second term.

The 1990s, remember, weren't exactly a decade of peace. Bill Clinton ordered more U.S. military interventions than any other post-WWII administration, and there's no reason to think any of them were over Hillary's protestations. She supported the U.S. military campaigns in Haiti, Kosovo, and Bosnia. She once boasted that as the tension in Kosovo mounted,
she called her husband from her trip to Africa and, "I urged him to bomb."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/123103.html

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
meow mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:44 PM
Response to Original message
18. nope, pretty sad. i think they put her gender above anything else? genderism?
Edited on Mon Feb-18-08 08:48 PM by meow mix
i cant figure out any other reason..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:48 PM
Response to Original message
21. Obama's Pro-War Record.......read it here...."Nuke Iran".............
Then there’s the matter of his actual policy and political record. If Obama is such (as many “progressives” seem to need to believe) an “antiwar” candidate, why has he offered so much substantive policy support to the criminal occupation and the broader imperial “war on terror” of which Bush says O.I.F. is a part? Here are some highlights from a summary of Obama’s U.S. Senate voting record recently sent to me by the Creative Youth News Team (CYNT 2007), a progressive African American advocacy organization:



“1/26/05: Obama voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice for Secretary of State. Rice was largely responsible…for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims in unnecessary wars...Roll call 2”



“2/01/05: Obama was part of a unanimous consent agreement not to filibuster the nomination of lawless torturer Alberto Gonzales as chief law enforcement officer of the United States (U.S. Attorney General).”



“2/15/05: Obama voted to confirm Michael Chertoff, a proponent of water-board torture... man behind the round-up of thousands of people of Middle-Eastern descent following 9/11. By Roll call 10.”



“4/21/05: Obama voted to make John ‘Death Squad’ Negroponte the National Intelligence Director. In Central America, John Negroponte was connected to death squads that murdered nuns and children in sizable quantities. He is suspected of instigating death squads while in Iraq, resulting in the current insurgency. Instead of calling for Negroponte's prosecution, Obama rewarded him by making him National Intelligence Director. Roll call 107”



“4/21/05: Obama voted for HR 1268, war appropriations in the amount of approximately $81 billion. Much of this funding went to Blackwater USA and Halliburton and disappeared. Roll call 109 ”



“7/01/05: Obama voted for H.R. 2419, termed ‘The Nuclear Bill’ by environmental and peace groups. It provided billions for nuclear weapons activities, including nuclear bunker buster bombs. It contains full funding for Yucca Mountain, a threat to food and water in California, Nevada, Arizona and states across America. Roll call 172 .”



“9/26/05 & 9/28/05: Obama failed and refused to place a hold on the nomination of John Roberts, a supporter of permanent detention of Americans without trial, and of torture and military tribunals for Guantanamo detainees.”

“10/07/05: Obama voted for HR2863, which appropriated $50 billion in new money for war. Roll call 2 .”



“11/15/05: Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which kept the war and war profiteering alive, restricted the right of habeas corpus and encouraged terrorism. Pursuant to his pattern, Obama voted for this. .”



“12/21/05: Obama confirmed his support for war by voting for the Conference Report on the Defense Appropriations Act (HR 2863), Roll call 366, which provided more funding to Halliburton and Blackwater. ”



“5/2/06: Obama voted for money for more war by voting for cloture on HR 4939, the emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater and other war profiteers. Roll call 103 .”



“5/4/06: Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to war profiteers. Roll call 112 .”



“6/13/06: Obama voted to commend the armed services for a bombing that killed innocent people and children and reportedly resulted in the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi… Michael Berg, whose son was reportedly killed by al-Zarqawi, condemned the attack and expressed sorrow over the innocent people and children killed in the bombing that Obama commended. Roll call 168 .”



“6/15/06: Obama voted for the conference report on HR4939, a bill that gave warmongers more money to continue the killing and massacre of innocent people in Iraq and allows profiteers to collect more money for scamming the people of New Orleans. Roll Call 171 .”



“6/15/06: Obama, again, opposed withdrawal of the troops, by voting to table a motion to table a proposed amendment would have required the withdrawal of US. Armed Forces from Iraq and would have urged the convening of an Iraq summit (S Amdt 4269 to S. Amdt 4265 to S2766) Roll Call 174 ”



“6/22/06: Obama voted against withdrawing the troops by opposing the Kerry Amendment (S. Amdt 4442 to S 2766) to the National Defense Authorization Act. The amendment, which was rejected, would have brought our troops home. Roll Call 181 ”



“6/22/06: Obama voted for cloture (the last effective chance to stop) on the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766), which provided massive amounts of funding to defense contractors to continue the killing in Iraq. Roll Call 183.”



“6/22/06: Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186 .



9/7/06: Obama voted to give more money to profiteers for more war (H..R. 5631). Roll Call 239 ”



“9/29/06: Obama voted vote for the conference report on more funding for war, HR 5631. Roll Call 261 .”



“11/16/06: Obama voted for nuclear proliferation in voting to pass HR 5682, a bill to exempt the United States-India Nuclear Proliferation Act from requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. Roll Call 270 .”



“12/06/06: Obama voted to confirm pro-war Robert M. Gates to be Secretary of Defense. Gates is a supporter of Bush's policies of pre-emptive war and conquest of foreign countries. Roll Call 272 ”



“Obama's voting record in 2007 establishes that he continues to be pro-war. On March 28, 2007 and March 29th, 2007, he voted for cloture and passage of a bill designed to give Bush over $120 billion to continue the occupation for years to come (with a suspendable time table) and inclusive of funding that could be used to launch a war with Iran. Roll calls 117 and 126 ...Obama's record shows a minimum of 20 major pro-war votes…”





Wow. I might have worded things a little differently than CYNT at times, but that’s a damning bill of indictment.



Obama’s intra-Democratic political record also defies those who insistent on wrapping him in an antiwar flag. In 2006 Obama lent his celebrity and political finance assistance to neoconservative war Senator Joe Lieberman’s (“D”-Connecticut) struggle against the Democratic antiwar insurgent Ned Lamont. Obama supported other mainstream Democrats fighting genuinely antiwar progressives in primary races, collaborating with Democratic muscle man Rahm Emannuel’s campaign to marginalize “peaceniks” within the party (see Sirota 2006, Silverstein 2006 and Cockburn 2006).



In a November 2005 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Obama rejected Rep. John Murtha’s (D-Pa.) call for a rapid redeployment and any notion of a timetable for withdrawal. Obama advocated “a pragmatic solution to the real war we’re facing in Iraq” and made repeated references to the need to “defeat” the “insurgency.” This language meant continuation of the war (Ford and Gamble 2005).



Earlier that same year, Obama shamefully distanced himself from his fellow Senator Dick Durbin’s (D-IL) forthright criticism of U.S. torture practices at Guantanamo (Street 2005; Cockburn 2006).





And he still refuses to foreswear the use of first-strike nuclear weapons against Iran (Gerson 2007). As Kucinich pointed out during last night’s debate, this is what Obama’s comment that “all options are on the table” in regard to Iran really boils down to: the potential first black U.S. President is willing to seriously consider the launching of a thermonuclear attack on that country. Debate participant Mike Gravel (a left former U.S. Senator of Alaska)was thinking of that horrific possibility when said the following about the leading Democratic candidates (Obama included of course) last night: “these people scare me.”



http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=1268...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 11:10 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. It's a case of who scares you more
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mudesi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 08:54 PM
Response to Original message
24. They don't care
I don't know why.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LordJFT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 09:03 PM
Response to Original message
25. Those votes were in DC, one of the places that doesn't count
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 09:06 PM
Response to Original message
26. She doesn't care if innocent people die...
in a war that shouldn't have been fought... why would she care if a group of kids gets blown up when they find a live cluster bomb ?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orwellian_Ghost Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 09:49 PM
Response to Original message
28. It should
as should Obama's votes that cannot be construed as anything but pro-war.

Both candidates also promise to keep up US aggressions. What should we do?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TexasObserver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Feb-18-08 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
32. No, because cognitive dissonance rules their minds right now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
carlotta Donating Member (256 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 09:48 AM
Response to Original message
37. Yes, it bothers me
It's why, initially, I couldn't support her. After months of listening to the candidates, watching the debates and reading as much as I could, I have come to the conclusion that (metaphrically) "better the devil you know than the devil you don't'". I recognize Hillary's flaws--she is not the perfect candidate. But neither is Obama. His vote to support the Cheney oil bill should trouble his supporters as well. His healthcare spokesperson who supports the insurance companies should equally raise alarm bells among his supporters. But I don't think it does. He is the blank slate unto which they have written their vision of how they imagine he will be, and they don't want anything to spoil that dream.

Here's what I know about Hillary. She is smart as a whip, she'll work her butt off for the American people, and she will never underestimate the underhandedness of the Republicans.

She's not perfect, but she's mine.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bread and Circus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #37
38. At least you are honest, I respect that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BigDDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
39. Oh, definitely
everyone here at my office is gathered around the water cooler
debating the big cluster bomb issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Feb-19-08 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. yes people should be debating this issue as we need clarification from the candidates
I don't think people are thinking ahead to what will happen after next January when one of candidates is inaugurated. I think we need to hear the foreign policy loud and clear. I see Obama has an overview on his website blog today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC