Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Joe Wilson

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
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 12:57 PM
Original message
Joe Wilson
The past week marked the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War and the milestone of the 4,000th American soldier killed in that disastrous adventure. Commemorating and underscoring the urgent need for a new policy direction, Senator Clinton delivered a serious and detailed address clearly setting out her vision for and commitment to ending the conflict. Her approach includes a direct critique of the most glaring failures of the Bush administration: its unwillingness to use political pressure and intense international diplomacy to effect a resolution of the outstanding differences that have driven the region into a proxy war within Iraq with the United States manning and supporting combatants on all sides. For years American generals have been telling the administration, the Congress, and the public that Iraq is not a situation that lends itself to a military solution and will only be resolved politically. While the focus of American opprobrium has been on the Iraqi government for its failure to find those solutions, Senator Clinton, in her speech, is the first presidential candidate to spell out in a precise plan the elements required for an international effort, including co-opting and controlling the enablers of the ongoing violence in Iraq, to promote political reconciliation and reform.

My wife, former CIA agent, Valerie, and I accompanied

more http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/smears-and-tears-how-oba_b_93525.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:01 PM
Response to Original message
1. ....Excellent article!!!
Edited on Wed Mar-26-08 01:22 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
While laudable in intent, Senator Obama would never have made the speech had his relationship with fiery pastor Jeremiah Wright not become a public relations nightmare for him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:05 PM
Response to Original message
2. Joe Wilson, Secretary of State
Doesn't that sound outstanding? I've been hoping for that for several years now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peace13 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:09 PM
Response to Reply #2
6. I believe the Wilsons are backing Hill.
Might be a bit messy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grasswire Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:13 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. I know the Wilsons are backing Senator Clinton.
I wonder who Obama has lined up for SoS, should he be elected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JuniperLea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
3. She is also the only one to correctly point out...
Edited on Wed Mar-26-08 01:07 PM by Juniperx
That the vast majority of those who attacked us with airplanes on 9/11/01 were Saudis, and that we've yet to address this issue with them.

Meanwhile, Obama, in the speech that garnered so much attention around here, cited Israel as a staunch ally to the US, and condemned Muslim extremists. Although I agree with the extremist stance, they are in no way responsible for ALL of Israel's woes, and are but new players in this. Not to mention the fact that we continue to give Israel tons of money... money we are borrowing from other countries! Money that we desperately need ourselves! All the while Israel is touting itself as a very strong country... economically... makes no sense to me at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:06 PM
Response to Original message
4. kick
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
niyad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:08 PM
Response to Original message
5. interesting that I have seen almost no coverage of her speech anywhere, including
commentary here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillYourVoteBCounted Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:09 PM
Response to Original message
7. Hillary got us in this war, and she "promises" to get (some of) us out n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. The title of the piece...... nice wordsmith...thanks for posting
Tears and Smears .....the Mendacity of Hype
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
10. The clear evidence that John Kerry ignorant:
"Senator John Kerry, another Obama surrogate, offered the startling observation that Obama is better equipped than anyone else to bridge the divide between the U.S. and the Muslim world and end Islamic extremism and terorrism -- "because he's a black man." There is absolutely no empirical evidence to sustain that claim, the notion that a single individual, even one with a resume filled with appropriate experience, would be able to halt terrorism because of the color of his skin. It is patently absurd. But Kerry presented nothing to back up his astounding racial reasoning. And the Obama campaign was remarkably silent on Kerry's racialization of the foreign policy discussion."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:37 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. Clear evidence Kerry is right:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:29 PM
Response to Original message
11. Thanks for the link. Being counter to the movement here is getting to be like
being a designated driver. I have several times reconsidered if I should support Obama. The last time I tuned in to listen to him, he was handing the microphone over to do one of the most despicable hit jobs on Bill Clinton I've ever seen. You would think that Obama's hostility to the party and support by Republicans would make people here question whether the he is as liberal as we seem to believe.

The banks support him, General Dynamics supports him, and the Aspen we-elected-George-Bush media supports him. There is an army of freeper-quality support around here, and indeed, the Repo party are complaining that they've lost some of theirs.

Bothering to listen to someone who was there, Joe Wilson, would be so much more work than blaming the nation's failure, multiple failures, on Hillary Clinton. Much better to believe this is all her fault than to look at ALL the elements that brought us Bush, his re-election, and his disastrous war.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AX10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:33 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. If it comes down to McCain v. Obama, I see it as...
Tweedle Dee v. Tweedle Dum.

As for the "designated driver" comparison: :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
emilyg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:54 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. I liked that, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
14. Clinton wouldn't have to spell out a plan if she'd have voted against the war
She enabled Bush, like so many of our democratic senators. Maybe some of you have forgotten that she voted for this war but I didn't. I don't want anymore warmongers inhabiting the white house.

Obama 08
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkansas Granny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. Even if Senator Clinton had voted against the IWR, we would still be there today.
Bush let that go to Congress just as a matter of show. He didn't ever feel that he needed it for the invasion. It was just a formality, like sending Powell to the U.N. to make the case for military intervention because of those WMD's that weren't there. You may think she was wrong, and that's your prerogative, but hers was only one vote of many. She didn't single-handedly give Bush permission.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wowimthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Mar-26-08 01:45 PM
Response to Original message
15. Both Clinton and McCain are war mongers
It's as if she should get a free pass now that she's against the war. Not this time.
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 Fri Apr 26th 2024, 07:23 PM
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