Hillary Clinton: Fooled Again or Neo-Conned?

[bridgit]

'Hillary Clinton is fond of saying that, if she knew in 2002 what she knows now, she would not have voted to give Bush the power to invade Iraq. To this day Clinton does not regret her vote, she only regrets “the way the president used the authority that Congress gave him.” Her campaign mantra, “The mistakes were made by this president, who misled this country and this Congress,” is an attempt to draw a veil of innocence over her vote and implicate all of us in the Iraq swindle.

Well, “all of us” really can’t continue to buy this argument. George Bush may have pulled the trigger, but Republicans and too many Democrats were holding the gun. Iraq was and continues to be a bipartisan war, and Hillary Clinton, until only recently, has been a vociferous cheerleader. Had events in Iraq taken a different turn, Clinton would be first in line to congratulate Bush on a job well done.'

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2007/10/hillary-clinton-fooled-again-or-neo-conned

[leftchick]

1. neither

a complicit warmongering corporate shill.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. I'm waiting for her to tell us again about "the failing insurgency".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-02-19-iraq-senators_x.htm

Clinton says insurgency is failing
BAGHDAD (AP) — As 55 people died in Iraq on Saturday, the holiest day on the Shiite Muslim religious calendar, Sen. Hillary Clinton said that much of Iraq was "functioning quite well" and that the rash of suicide attacks was a sign that the insurgency was failing.

[PsN2Wind]

4. Well you know

you can just stroll thru the markets now, Senator McCain told us so. And with only 100 heavily armed escorts and gunships overhead. It's kinda like when the Old Lady goes to Walmart.

[leftchick]

9. wind blows

Hillary flows.... day after day, year after year. :(

[paulk]

3. this article is bullshit

Iraq is not a bipartisan war. It's George Bush's war.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if so called "radicals" like "dissident voice" are funded by the RNC.

[bridgit]

6. negative, the colloidal, so-called 'bipartisan' support, indeed of the world after...

ahem, and i halt at having to mention it but: 9-11, was squandered by g.w. bush...who knew, that The Queen of England could be compelled to play any other standard but for her own in passing before the palace :shrug: nay she played ours, no, negative, and although composed as such from the Gitmo it is *now* g.w. bush's war in spades or hearts you chose, and not just his but the republican no-bid crony war profiterring machine

the beginning resolve was a common goal though like common sense...it is little in coming and often not so common at all

[pscot]

7. Bush must have the Democrats hypnotized

otherwise, why would they keep voting to perpetuate "George Bush's war"? The Democrats have their dirty fingerprints all over the Iraq war.

[msongs]

5. the old false-choice ploy nt

[superkia]

8. After 9/11 we got this kind of propaganda...

and it wasn't from Bush's mouth, be very careful about what some of our own candidates were doing before the war. What was the agenda of those who voted yes to the war that everyone likes to call Bush's war? Why do ignore the facts just because the same candidates say it is Bush's war? This is our children's future that rides on this election and it amazes me how many people don't care. Remember when you cast your primary vote, that same weapon that was handed to Bush, is now in your hands! Tell me who you think is electable after reading the facts.

This is from one of the so called front runners mouths:

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, TO BE IN THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE POSITION TO LEAD OUR COUNTRY in the United Nations OR IN WAR. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

This is from the so called unelectable candidate:

The American people deserve to know that the key issue here is that there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States of America. I will repeat: there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. THE ADMINISTRATION HAS REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE CONGRESS WITH CREDIBLE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THAT IRAQ IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES AND THAT IT IS CONTINUING TO POSSESS AND DEVELOP CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence connecting Iraq to al Qaeda and 9-11, and yet there are people who want to bomb Iraq in reprisal for 9-11. Imagine, if you will, as Cleveland columnist Dick Feagler wrote last week, if after this country was attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor in 1941, if instead of retaliating by bombing Japan, we would have retaliated by bombing Peru. Iraq is not connected by any credible evidence to 9-11, nor is it connected by any credible evidence to the activities of al Qaeda on 9-11.
The resolution says, and I quote, continuing in this comparison point by point, the resolution

[Deja Q]

10. Wasn't hubby Bill, in 1998, keen on attacking Iraq - for the same reasons?

would Hillary have known at the time?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457jp8VGhEE

[bridgit]

11. yup, although i voted for Clinton twice there are still those that feel Clinton...

was an illuminati/tri lateral tool all along, but you're right = there can be no way to discount, ahem, the import pillow talk i suppose either

[Individualist]

12. Neither fooled nor conned

Know your DLC:

Let's just look at the cold, hard facts about the DLC and its record. The DLC has pushed, among other things, the war in Iraq and "free" trade policies, using bags of corporate money to buy enough Democratic votes to help Republicans make those policies a reality. They have chastised anyone who has opposed those policies as either unpatriotic or anti-business -- even as a majority of Americans now oppose the war in Iraq, oppose the DLC's business-written trade deals, and are sick of watching America's economy sold out to the highest corporate bidder. Additionally, in brazenly Orwellian fashion, the DLC has also called its extremist agenda "centrist," even though polls show the American public opposes most of their agenda, and supports much of the progressive agenda. http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0727-32.htm

The progressive movement has not just threatened this message monopoly -- it is undoing it. Through MoveOn, the rise of popular documentaries, blogs, think tanks, etc. It's not just that we talk about real values and innovative strategies. It's because we're talking, period, that the centrists feel threatened.

Hence the DLC's vicious attempts to discredit the movement. And that's what they want. They don't seek to win an argument over policy. They seek to destroy the credibility of their opponents and restore their message monopoly. http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=721

This is why the DLC is dangerous. For all their claims of supposedly wanting to help Democrats, they employ people like Marshall Wittman who specifically try to undermine the Democratic Party, even if it means he has to publicly defecate out the most rank and easily-debunkable lies. They reguarly give credence to the right wing's agenda and its worst, most unsupportable lies. They are the real force that tries to make sure this country is a one party state and that Democrats never really challenge the Republicans in a serious way. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/why-the-dlc-is-so-dangero_b_13640.html

"The Democratic Leadership Council's agenda is indistinguishable from the Republican Neoconservative agenda," http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Kucinich_DLC_agenda_undistinguishable_from_Neocon_0813.html

DLC Watch, the wicked shall not escape justice http://dlcwatch.blogspot.com

Without a doubt, the DLC is the most fundamentalist organization within the caucus, the most ideologically rigid, and the most destructive to the progressive cause.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/24/1712/23448

These DLC types are amazing, they really are. Their pathology is unique; they all secretly worship the guilt-by-association tactics of Lee Atwater and Karl Rove, but unlike those two, not one of them has enough balls to take being thought of as the bad guy by the general public.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11275627/the_low_post_democrats_walk_themselves_to_the_gallows