A Shout-Out to John Edwards’ Official Blog!

Susan, I just can’t help wondering why Hillary is your first choice, and Edwards your second instead of vice versa. What do you prefer about Hillary?

[...] NO QUARTER wrote an interesting post today on A Shout-Out to John Edwardsâ

Lots of reasons. First, there was my “epiphany” last year when I stopped one day and asked myself why I nodded affirmatively when people said “I hate Hillary.” I remembered the times I’ve heard her speak — especially on a Charlie Rose hour-long interview years ago — and realized that her grasp of all issues is incredibly deep and wide.

Then there was Larry’s impression of her when he met her. His post about meeting her tells that story. That she understands both our military and the Middle East so well impresses me. (You and I disagree on the Kyl/Liebermann vote and I’d say that if it had been up to me, I’d probably have joined Jim Webb in voting no — BUT I see very clearly the terrible pressure on her, as a woman, to appear tough in international relations. If she ran as a leftie, she wouldn’t have a prayer. I have FULL confidence that, as president, she will not get us into any more wars, and that she’ll focus almost entirely on positive diplomacy, only using the “stick” part of “carrots and sticks” diplomacy with the greatest care and when it is needed — which it is sometimes.)

I also think that she has far more experience than john Edwards who served a single six-year term in the U.S. Senate. However, Edwards, unlike Obama, has run a high-risk (plaintiffs) law firm and built it from the ground up. Heading up a law firm requires an enormous amount of administrative work. Obama mostly schmoozed in the community, did a bit of real estate work for his pals like Rezko, and taught law part-time — i get the distinct impression he never really worked that hard. I doubt he wanted to work hard at a major law firm because he’s a bit lazy.

Having studied her biography extensively, I learned that she did far more as First Lady than is generally credited to her. She was singled out by the Irish, for example, as being pivotal to their peace process. And she traveled the world, to remote villages in Africa and South Asia and elsewhere, advocating for economic programs for impoverished women and men. During her many years in Arkansas, she did so much for women and children, as well as the state’s education system. I could go on and on.

It’s very difficult to sum up in a single comment. So don’t attack me for anything I may have omitted. I’m trying not to be too long-winded.

“…volunteers at the Barack Obama for president table were selling an inch-thick booklet explaining Obama’s policy positions for $5.”

I honestly did not know that the Obama campaign could possibly fill an inch-thick book with explanations of policy positions, because they seem to have so few fleshed out. I am stunned. Seriously.

But, this is also a real commentary on who the ‘insurgent’ candidate is this time around in the Democratic primary. And, it’s certainly not either current member of the US Senate.

good summation of the current economy & how it got here.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12268

and how to recover.

Thank you, Susan.

“I have FULL confidence that, as president, she will not get us into any more wars, and that she’ll focus almost entirely on positive diplomacy, only using the “stick” part of “carrots and sticks” diplomacy with the greatest care and when it is needed”

Then how do you explain her stated intention to significantly increase both the size and the budget of the military? Why does the United States need an even larger military, and why does the United States need to spend even more on the military than it has during the warmongering Bush administration if she is not going to use it except when it is absolutely “needed” (whatever “needed” actually means).

“which it is sometimes.”

Can we conclude from this that you consider the military an appropriate tool of foreign policy? Is military force an appropriate way in which to manage foreign relations?

“You and I disagree on the Kyl/Liebermann vote…I see very clearly the terrible pressure on her, as a woman, to appear tough in international relations.”

1. Is Kyl/Lieberman an example of what you (and presumably Hillary, too) consider “positive diplomacy”?

2. What makes you think that terrible pressure to appear tough in international relations is going to disappear once she is President, and what makes you think she will not feel the same need to be “tough”?

As for all her work on behalf of impoverished women, she has also very strongly and openly and effectively supported policies that have brought an unimaginable level of impoverishment to Iraqi and Palestinian women, and deprived them of adequate food, electricity, clean water, and medical care that were prior to the implementation of those policies, readily available to those women. Therefore I am not even slightly impressed by her record on women’s rights and welfare anywhere.

Very large type?

Scott Ritter on Hillary Clinton, war, lies, and the Middle East.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48729/

Her record is crystal clear. It is only our failure of imagination, and memory, that lets her appear otherwise.

http://www.pastpeak.com/archives/2004/07/a_failure_of_im.htm

Congratulations Susan on the Edwards’s blog pickup!

My first choice is Hillary too. The reason that trumps all others for me is that she’s been preparing herself for the job, she has put together a great team of professionals and experts, and she’ll first professionalize the agencies and promote the more rational and the brightest military leaders. She wants experts to tell her what they think, she wants to reverse as much of the Bush mess as possible. I know she’s presented as for the war, but that’s never what she said. I don’t know how you feel about Bush, but he was a very scary guy at first, and maybe he still is, and there was a need to contain him. After 9-11 he got way too much power, and he got the war authorization vote passed for Afghanistan that seemed to give him power to attack anywhere. In the run-up to war in Iraq he claimed that was all he needed. I think she voted for the second one to contain him, she certainly made a compelling anti-war speech that meant she wanted inspectors. It didn’t work to contain Bush, that was a failure, he pulled out the inspectors and he kept Saddam’s offer of exile secret, but she’s not in favor of war in general, and certainly not in favor of that one, that was actually only Bush and his groups idea.

I like her ideas on education, universal pre-schools and post-high school training or college. I like her ideas for saving dying communities, do you ever watch The Wire on HBO, it’s criminal how this country has neglected cities and left children with no hope for a plausible future.

I also like it that she’s a girl. This country isn’t as sexist as some, but it’s very sexist, especially regarding positions of power. I think it’ll be a good thing for little girls to know they can grow up to be president and I think her emphasis will be more humane and kindly because she’s female and knows what it’s like.

Obama is an okay guy, but he isn’t as progressive and he’s far less experienced. We don’t know what his priorities will be if he’s elected president, although I expect they’ll be okay, at least I hope they will be. I don’t think he gets what it’s like for really poor Americans though, his support seems to come from the higher income people who don’t really need government assistance to lead a good life, they can pay for private colleges, pay for expensive medical care, that kind of thing. I like Edwards, and I have no reservations about where he stands.

Thus said just because I support her the most does not mean I’d cry if either of the others were elected. They are all three good people, and far better than the best in the Republican field, without doubt.

I don’t think any of our candidates have a rational position on Palestine. Whoever is next elected will have to have one, that situation is more than out of hand, the suffering of the Palestinians is unbelievable. Whoever it is will half to lay out a peace plan that recognizes that the Palestinians have already given up more than half their country and need to keep what’s left, and need to travel and engage in commerce. It’s not just the fault of the Americans though, it’s also the fault of middle east countries who have taken advantage of that situation to repress their own people, there is plenty of blame to go around and an entire population of victims. I don’t know what the next president will do, I know none of them will chance saying anything before the election, at least if they want to get elected, and that afterwards each will do his or her best. Do you have a solution? You already know I don’t blame Hillary for Iraq, i blame bush and bush alone. But if you do blame her, I can’t see how you could vote for her.

[...] SusanUnPC wrote an interesting post today on A Shout-Out to John Edwardsâ

Her relationship with Bill, as first lady, is denigrated by Obama’s team.

But I think of Abigal and John Adams, say, or Frances and W. Henry Seward.

The difference being, it is no longer unseemly for a woman to understand and openly participate in the political process.

Congratulations, you may yet have your 15 minutes of fame.

If I were in the Clinton’s shoes, I would fund the Edwards campaign until Super Tuesday to keep any of his supporters from joining the Obama’s camp. If the polling following a hypothetical Edwards withdrawl showed an increase in the Obama numbers, the 24/7 media would hype it into another Iowa bubble.

shrin you have mentioned numerous times your objection to the increase in the military budget and the increase in forces. i’m not a war mongering pro military big spender … unlike raygun, i dont believe you can cut taxes and increase the military budget without worrying about the national debt. that being said … it seems rather obvious to me, the US will need to increase military spending for a couple years just to recoup the material and supplies we have foolishly used in iraq. the same goes for increasing the numbers of troops. the real questions are these: what is a significant increase and will this be a temporary increase. now these are question we could reasonbly discuss.

as to our foreign policy and the role of the military upon policies and actions. i think it would be naive to believe that the two are seperate from each other and should never influence one another. for me, the real crux of leadership is how these two concerns are balanced. finally, our perception of hillary and what she has done for women and children throughout the world is probably far less important then how these same women view her … for the most part, i would say she is viewed in a far more positive light then you are giving her credit and probably less highly then many of us might claim.

Susan – is there any place where a list of legisltaion initiated or cosponsered and passed by Hillary is available.

Also – a list of legislaiton not passed.

Hopefully the commemeration type things could be filtered out

Regarding positions on Palestine, and their effect, from Juan Cole:

http://www.juancole.com/2008/01/israeli-victory-over-asthmatics.html

Both parties are complicit in this. Certainly Clinton, especially Clinton.

Shades of the opening scenes of what the Israelis left behind in Ramallah in Pilger’s ‘Palestine is still the Question.’

Edwards is the only one of the candidates about whom there is any reason to suppose anything might change.

There’s always Sen. Clinton’s Senate Web site, which has all of her press releases, news and legislation dating back to 2001.

Then there’s Project VoteSmart. Here’s page for Sen. Obama.

Susan–I am with you on Hillary as first choice–as is my husband.
As for Edwards-he was my first choice a while ago–but he is no longer even my second choice–for a multitude of reasons I do not want to spell out for the time being.

1 Watt, I read your “Smirking Chimp” economic analysis & I have something for you to think about (1)GWB’s death tax cut, guess what? most states now take just about the same amount that heirs previously paid to Uncle, so that’s really a red herring. The heir just pays the $$$$ directly to the state, instead of the states having to wait to get the deflated $$$$ back from Uncle. (2)Plenty of people besides the wealthy pay cap gains tax. Let’s say you buy a house & renovate it yourself (don’t tell me that’s not real work) I don’t care if you only make 5K you pay cap gains.(3) Dividends/interest, go ahead take that away & see who invests or saves for a rainy day & that includes pension funds. Plus how do you expect seniors to make a buck if they get screwed on interest & dividends, is an 80yr old suppose to do “real work”? Maybe the writer of the Smirking Chimp would like even more tax collected to support the elderly after Uncle or the state conficates their home or farm like they do before the elderly can collect nursing home subsidy. Get real. On the other side I do agree with a single payer health plan if it’s well done.

“I don’t think any of our candidates have a rational position on Palestine.”

Dennis Kucinich does.

Why don’t you want to spell them out? If you have good reasons you ought to share them.

Leave her be. Not everything is a red flag in your face

Shirin,
Susan has spelled out her many reasons for supporting Hillary every day for the last few weeks at least. Just review her posts!

Try this link.

http://www.govtrack.us/

Leslie, the whole Obama-sucks-Hillary-rules-a-thon here has become so tiresome that I pretty much skip all those posts. Therefore, I have not seen all Susan’s reasons for choosing Hillary. I appreciate the fact that she responded to my question at the top of this post. I do not agree with all of her thinking, but I respect that she has taken a reasoned approach.

I also find in Hillary Clinton a lot of the qualities I think would make a fine President. She is clearly very intelligent and quick-witted, diligent, forceful, and tough-minded, articulate (but then who wouldn’t be after Bush?!), and in my view personable. Unfortunately, her history on foreign policy, military policy, her attitudes on international law and human rights, and her dedication to AIPAC and Israel put her completely out of the running for me.

As for the view that she is “knowledgeable” about the Middle East and Middle East issues, I find her “knowledge” to be deeply biased.

And the fact that she considers military violence to be a valid tool of foreign policy – something she shares with many others, including apparently a lot of people around here – is unacceptable.

Susan, I am trying to understand people’s thinking. Mine is very clear to me, and I know when my decisions are based on impulse or emotion and when they are based on reason and logic – and when they are a combination of both. Other people’s thinking sometimes makes sense to me without explanation, and sometimes it is a black box. I like to know what is going on inside black boxes. That’s all.

SusanUNPC as you are now aware I would not vote for Hillary Clinton in a million years. Of course, if they threatened to dunk me into a tub of caustic soda unless I “confessed”, well I guess I would “confess”. But it wouldn’t be honest.

On preference, and yes I agree Obama is a painted blue Democrat, but so is dear Hillary. Both Bill’s buddy Daddy Bush & her allegience with that rancid starched redneck – whatshisname McCain Oven Chips surely gives the clue. In my opinion, if she follows through with everything she’s “promised” over the years, Iraq will look like a kid’s squabble.

But as expected the deal was done & the corporate media can see only glorious times with Mrs Clinton, and though there is limited puffery towards Obama, there is a general undercurrent of snarling & grumbling. Perhaps Will Smith should make his move now, although I noticed that Oprah has got knocked off the post by the lesbian fans. Hmmm, I wonder if one can read into that.

Regards John Edwards, I don’t recall him ever being mentioned here in Australia, which suggests he will be fighting against the tide is an US contest. At least Webb made a few articles, but he was always far too politically correct for what is required at this critical stage. Ron Paul has made the most sense so far, but my concern would be who he attracted. We know the skullduggery that went on before (currently), why not business as usual?

‘n lotsa pi’chures . . . stay inside the lines . . .

Shirin: At times I am truly stuck, lacking a point of departure or reference to understand some one else’s point of view. “and sometimes it is a black box.”
I also am not an expert nor do I have the experience of those that post at NQ that I learn so much from. It at times require some “lateral drift”(Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) which not easy when I am moving away from the familiar modes of thought.
As uncomfortable as it maybe for me to look at Iraq through the eyes of an Iraqi trying to survive a trip to the market and understand what that “sounds” like, is only available based on what I can allow my self to perceive. (Read what I would do if a foreign army was in my town…you bet I would not be watching the primary debates!!) So I get what you’re saying. I deeply respect your passion when it comes to the issues you care about. One last thing. If you do not to read the post of folks that you disagree with how will you ever understand the strength of your own views?
“If you have good reasons you ought to share them.” ??

On of my favorite lines…”If you smile at me; I will understand…’cause that is something everybody does in the same language…
(Wooden Ships;Jefferson Airplane)

“Whoever is next elected will have to have [a rational position on Palestine].”

I just don’t think that is going to happen. It certainly hasn’t ever happened until now. It won’t happen with Hillary who is deeply beholden to AIPAC and other Zionist interests and has a history of all-out uncritical support of whatever Israel did.

“that situation is more than out of hand, the suffering of the Palestinians is unbelievable.”

Yes, it is, and it is shocking that the so-called civilized world apparently thinks it is just fine to let Israel continue the torment. It is also important to understand that the suffering of the Palestinians, while it is horrifying, is not the core problem that needs to be addressed. The suffering of the Palestinians is merely a by product of the core problem, which is Israel’s refusal to abandon its expansionist program and start acting like a law abiding member of the world community.

“Whoever it is will half to lay out a peace plan that recognizes that the Palestinians have already given up more than half their country and need to keep what’s left, and need to travel and engage in commerce.”

Indeed!

“It’s not just the fault of the Americans though, it’s also the fault of middle east countries who have taken advantage of that situation to repress their own people”

Here we part company a bit. The core problem is Israel’s intransigent refusal to give up its territorial ambitions, and its lust for regional domination and refusal to do what is needed to gain acceptance in the region. The Middle East countries are not responsible for that. To the extent that it has encouraged an enabled Israel in its lawless and violent policies and practices the United States bears some responsibility.

That is not to absolve the Middle East regimes of wrong doing in respect to their treatment of their citizens.

“I don’t know what the next president will do, I know…each will do his or her best.”

But do his or her best to accomplish what, exactly, that is the question. Tragically, what the next president is likely to do his or her best to accomplish is to support Israel no matter what it does while perhaps, but not necessarily, uttering the occasional tsk tsk. The next president is, I suppose, likely to make the usual efforts toward solving the conflict by telling the Palestinians in which directly they should face while bending over, and then blaming them when they do not accept. That’s what Bill Clinton did, and that’s what Hillary, Obama, and probably Edwards, too, are most likely to do.

“Do you have a solution?”

A solution? Well, I know what needs to happen, and what would get this thing solved very quickly, but there isn’t a chance in hell of that happening. The U.S. has to tell Israel that it will never get another cent or another UN Security Council veto until it removes its illegal colonists, dismantles the ghetto wall, or moves it to the green line, withdraws to the pre-June-1967 borders, compensates the people whom it has deprived of their property, pays reparations to its victims, cleans up its human rights act, and refrains from any further aggressions. Once the money and the international protections stop Israel will come into line quite quickly.

“You already know I don’t blame Hillary for Iraq, i blame bush and bush alone.”

Hillary was a strong and consistent supporter of the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq. She did not back away from that position until about a year ago when it became clear that she would never win the nomination unless she did. She, along with the other Congress members who supported the invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, bears responsibility for her role in selling it to the public and to her fellow legislators.

“But if you do blame her, I can’t see how you could vote for her.”

I do not blame Hillary, but I do hold her responsible for her part in supporting and promoting it. More importantly, I look at her entire record on Iraq in particular and the use of military violence as a tool of foreign policy in general, and I use that to predict what she is likely to do as president.

And no, I could not vote for her. Nor could I vote for Obama. Edwards? Maybe.

“If you do not to read the post of folks that you disagree with how will you ever understand the strength of your own views?”

I haven’t said that I do not read the posts of people I disagree with. All I said was that the Obama-sucks-Hillary-rules-a-rama here is tiresome, and I do not choose to spend my valuable time reading them. If I were in the least undecided about either Obama or Hillary, it might be different, but I do not need additional reasons, real or bogus, not to vote for Obama, and nothing short of a radical change in her foreign policy stance (and a dismissal of most of her foreign policy advisers, each of whom has a sea of blood on their hands) is going to change my mind about Hillary.

and I do not choose to spend my valuable time reading them

Oh.

Hillary Clinton is diligent and hard working, no doubt about it. However, I am compelled to remember that she bought without any skepticism the whole WMD, Osama’s-best-pal, Iraq-is-a-threat story, did not bother to check the facts behind the claims, and could not even be bothered to read – or have one of her staff read and report to her on – the NIE, which called some of the claims into question. That is an inexcusable failure to do due diligence before making one of the most awesomely important decisions a person can make.

}

It’s also annoying to come here day after day and see nothing but “OBAMA SUCKS!!!!!” “HILLARY IS THE BOMB!!!!!” over and over and over and over again, as if we are all thick as planks and need it drummed into our heads six times a day. Okay, okay, we GET it, we GET it! Now can we please talk about something else for awhile?!!!!

As has been noted that the sequence of NIE’s that have been cherry picked right up the “stove pipe” until recently perhaps would cause some to disregard them and seek out other sources. As you put it “and I do not choose to spend my valuable time reading them”. I am in no way saying Hillary and 76 other senators should not have read the NIE just that some had advanced knowledge it was CRAP.

“it seems rather obvious to me, the US will need to increase military spending for a couple years just to recoup the material and supplies we have foolishly used in iraq.”

If you withdraw from Iraq, that would be 3-4 billion a week you would not be spending there.

“the same goes for increasing the numbers of troops.”

If you withdrew from Iraq and refrained from using military violence as a tool of foreign policy, and used it only as defense, that would free up a couple of hundred or so troops.

“the real questions are these: what is a significant increase and will this be a temporary increase.”

Obama has said 100,000 additional troops. That seems pretty significant to me, particularly given that even his and Hillary’s half-assed so-called “withdrawals” would free up about that many.

“as to our foreign policy and the role of the military upon policies and actions. i think it would be naive to believe that the two are seperate from each other and should never influence one another.”

Are you saying that you believe it is legitimate to use military violence as a tool of foreign policy?

“for me, the real crux of leadership is how these two concerns are balanced.”

Sorry, I’m not clear what specifically you mean by this.

“finally, our perception of hillary and what she has done for women and children throughout the world is probably far less important then how these same women view her … for the most part, i would say she is viewed in a far more positive light then you are giving her credit and probably less highly then many of us might claim.”

I am sure those women she has helped, and those who were involved in those projects, think the world of her, and they should. She has helped some women, and for that she deserves credit. My point is that she cannot realistically be painted generally as a great champion of women and children because on balance she has supported and helped implement policies that have been devastating to the lives of millions upon millions of women and children, particularly in Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon. In Iraq in particular women have suffered a huge decline in their status, rights, and living conditions – and hundreds of thousands have lost their lives, their children, and their entire families – as a direct result of policies she has supported and helped to implement. And she has no doubt supported and helped implement these policies with the full knowledge and understanding of the nature and magnitude of their impact on women and children.

I really liked Taters thread.

“that would free up a couple of hundred or so troops.”

Make that a couple of hundred thousand or so troops.

OK, and that does not explain their complete failure to do any other due diligence in investigating the veracity of the information they were being given. It also does not explain why they were not the least bit skeptical in the face of the obvious inconsistencies in the White House and the Pentagon’s stories.

You know, there is one important difference here between my not wanting to take my time to read the incessant anti-Obama pro-Hillary posts here, and the failure of United States legislators (of which Hillary is only one) to bother to at least have their staff read and report to them on the NIE, and to verify the information they were being given before voting to give the President the power to invade and occupy a foreign country. I am not under any obligation to read anything that is posted on this website, and my failure to read everything that gets posted here is not going to have earth shattering consequences.

I can’t say one way or the other Shirin why fear works in suspension of disbelief. The Dems were not acting as Bipedal vertebrates. That is a tragic but required question to ask. I did not by it…just by watching the body language. I will always wonder about it too.

Body language, vocal clues, and the inconsistencies of their stories – most seven year olds are more convincing.

But was it fear, really, do you think? Or something else. I don’t know, but it is inexcusable.

Ideas have earth shattering consequences.

Depends on the idea.

E=mc2 perhaps?

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/voice1.htm

Well, yeah, that one did have pretty far reaching consequences. Not all ideas have the same impact, though, do they?

Shirin, you are much much too civil. Hillary KNEW that there were no WMD. She LIED about her reasons for voting for the war. LIED. It was not a failure in due diligence. It was a knowing vote for a war that had no justification in law, that she knew would kill large numbers of innocents. She KNEW this. She made that awsomely important decision in the most corrupt way, fully aware of what she was doing.

Perhaps she expected better management after the US forces reached Baghdad. That doesn’t matter. She is soaked in the blood of children.

to respond in kind shirin:

you stated “if you withdraw from Iraq, that would be 3-4 billion a week you would not be spending there
let me remind you that the 3-4 billion a week is not budgeted. i believe we were talking about budgeted line items … ergo we could increase spending and yet spend much less.

the next two concerns can by lumped together. the unintended consequences of waging this war and prolonged occupation has left the US military low in moral as evidenced by the projected low rate of reenlistments. either way … more troops will be needed.

i think you are trying to put words into my mouth regarding the use of military force in diplomacy. at no time did i endorse military action … i merely pointed out … military strength can never be ignored when it comes to foreign policy decisions … the strength of the US and other countries as well. as an example, when negotiating with a foreign policy … military strength is always part of the equation. perhaps this is wrong but we certainly are more likely to give more when negotiating with china then say costa rica … a reality we cant ignore.

as to the leadership issue … i think it is self evident that neocons are more likely to use military intervention then neolibs, conservatives or even liberals. your straw man question is once again an attempt to speak for me.

the last point i think is rather obvious … let the rest of the world speak for themselves and their feelings abut what hillary has or hasnt done.

Thank you for clarifying on the question of use of military violence as a tool of foreign policy. I wasn’t trying to put words into your mouth. That is why I asked you if that was what you were saying instead of responding on the assumption that it WAS what you were saying – I was not sure because I did not clearly understand your statement.

We do not agree that a major increase in personnel is necessary to repair the damage to the military of the Iraq debacle. On the contrary, if the United States were to withdraw from Iraq, even to the unacceptably small extent proposed by Hillary and Obama, and if the United States were to refrain from further aggressive behaviour against other countries, a reduced military should more than meet the country’s genuine defense needs. This is not just me talking. I have seen this from military analysts.

Of course here I am talking about REAL GENUINE defense against real actual threats to the country’s security. That would require a major paradigm shift away from the concept of using the military as a tool with which to aggressively pursue the United States’ economic and political interests and force its will on the world – aka the pursuit of hegemony leading to empire.

Based on Hillary’s history going back to her tenure as a very actively involved First Lady, and her statements and announcements as a Presidential candidate, I believe she sees the use of military violence as a means of pursuing of U.S. self-interest, in the absence of any threat, to be perfectly legitimate. She sees it as the “stick” to use to “bring them into line” when the “carrot” does not work.

I, for one, would like to see the time when the United States figures out that at the end of the day its tactic of bullying and treating other countries and their leaders and representatives as some kind of lesser “others” causes more problems than it solves. I wish I believed I would live to see the day when the United States learns how to be a decent member of the world community.

I am inclined to join you in the belief that she lied, knowing full well that every one of the pretexts for attacking Iraq was bogus. I have always found it very curious that she is the only Congress member who appeared to swallow without any skepticism whatsoever the entire box of lies. She, a lawyer trained in logic and in detecting inconsistencies, and a very sophisticated politician with an exceptionally keen mind who has been directly exposed for nearly two decades to a wealth of insider information about Iraq policy, the weapons inspection process and its results, Saddam Hussein, his relationships and manner of rule, turns out to be the only one in the Congress to swallow without a single question the entire packet of rubbish presented so ineptly by the neocon Bushites? Does not compute. Even Lieberman, who was foaming at the mouth to attack Iraq, was not so credulous, for heaven’s sake! Even Lieberman expressed skepticism about some of the White House claims. But not Hillary! She was a gullible as a schoolgirl.

Nope, there really is something very fishy about all this.

“i think it is self evident that neocons are more likely to use military intervention then neolibs, conservatives or even liberals.“:

It is not at all evident if you take a look at the record. On the contrary, in fact. Neolibs, conservatives, and liberals have historically been VERY fond of military “intervention”.

“your straw man question is once again an attempt to speak for me.”

You seem fond of making assumptions about people’s intentions, and then, without confirmation, running with them as if they were correct. I was not attempting to speak for anyone, I was asking for clarification, and there was no straw man involved.
Sheesh! I simply wanted to know whether you are an advocate of the use of military violence as a tool of foreign policy because it sounded as though you might be, but I was not clear. If you are not, then we are in agreement on that question. If you are, then we have a fundamental disagreement. I was just trying to find out. OK?

“the last point i think is rather obvious … let the rest of the world speak for themselves and their feelings abut what hillary has or hasnt done.”

What is this all about? I do not mean to be putting words into your mouth, but it almost sounds as if you are suggesting that I have no right to point out that Hillary has been part of policies and actions that have caused enormous harm to women and children, particularly in certain parts of the world, and to express my views in this regard. I hope that I have misunderstood your intention here.

I think the neocons have bought off Bill and Hillary so they can continue their ambitions to conquer the world.

I present here a list which I took from another article which list all the reasons why we supposedly want Bush out of office.

* Habeas Corpus and the right to a fair trial … crossed out

* Basic Principles of International Law… erased

* Treaties… no longer the Supreme Law of the Land

* War Crimes… no longer prosecuted, but sanctioned, funded, administered, and ignored

* The Right to Privacy… removed

* Cruel and Unusual Punishment… now business as usual by executive fiat

* Free Speech… relocated to a free speech zone and on it’s way out

* Freedom of Religion… contorted beyond meaning and recognition

* Freedom of the Press… diminished, corrupted, and self- or state- censored

* Justice… guilty until proven innocent; while liars, cheats, and war criminals go free

* The Rule of Law… applies to some but not to all

* Separation of Powers… cancelled

* Impeachment for High Crimes and Misdemeanors… off the table

Has Hillary addressed what she would do about any of these things?

No because in order to get elected she and big Bill had to promise they would not change anything that Bush has put in place or as they said she and Bill sold their souls to the devil in return for the power.

Nothing new been done many times in the past.

Therefore even though the parties might change the real difference is minimal and it is just like a dictatorship when the dictator decides to retire he gives his power to someone whom he can control.

As I have said many times if you believe that these people who have been thirsting for the power and control of our country which they now have are just quietly going to go away into the night and let anyone Rep or Dem take control think again.

So Bush steps down and they then let Hillary win instead of backing one of there own and business continues as usual.

I don’t know why I didn’t see this before.

So Hillary lovers take heart your girl will win but unless you can prove to me that she will immediately do something about the things on the list then I WILL continue to call her administration Bush lite..and she can go down in history as the first woman head of a fascist state.

she is the only Congress member who appeared to swallow without any skepticism whatsoever the entire box of lies

Someone posted her speech before voting on the MAUF, I suggest you read it. I might consider her voting for it an error in judgement, but to say she was the only one to do so is factually incorrect. There only 23 senators to vote against the MAUF. What were the other 77 senators doing? In watching the speech on C-Span it is clear (to me) she made a political calculation based on whatever information she was aware of and after being given direct assurances from the White House that they would not go to the “Triple dog dare ya”. I do believe you are correct in saying she took the word of a sociopath at face value..TSK TSK for her…she and nearly 60% of the rest of this country bought that one.
Even Lieberman, who was foaming at the mouth to attack Iraq, was not so credulous
Oh Please Shirin, Lieberman never met a war he did not like and he is foaming at the mouth ’cause has political rabies.

But… Crosby, Stills and Nash…

What I said was that Hillary was the only one who swallowed the entire packet of lies without any skepticism or question about any piece of it. I said that even Lieberman expressed some skepticism about some of the claims, but not Hillary. She took the entire package of bullshit and not only ran with it, she worked pretty hard selling it.

I don’t know whether she lied or whether she was simply inexcusably credulous about a question of enormous life and death, earth-changing significance, but either way she failed abysmally in her responsibilities. Either way, she does not deserve to get a free pass for it.

Of all the members of the Senate she was in the best position to verify or question Bush’s claims, and of all the Democratic members of the Senate she seems to have questioned it the least. That is unforgivable in my view.

Of all the members of the Senate she was in the best position to verify or question Bush’s claims, and of all the Democratic members of the Senate she seems to have questioned it the least. That is unforgivable in my view.

Absolutely unforgivable. But it is in reality much worse.

Regarding what she knew about Iraq, see again:

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48729/

But the question remains what she had to gain by the neocons attacking Iraq.

Your correct. What was I thinking>?

Marcos? Peron?

had to promise they would not change anything that Bush has put in place

The “What Lies Beneath” is who did they make this promise to?

They are three penguins short of impeachment hearings in the House Judicuary. 9 of 23 Dems.

Has Hillary addressed what she would do about any of these things?

Bill,

Not that I’m aware of. She also supports torture.

Clinton Equivocates on Torture
New York Daily News

Despite her apparent opposition to torture, Hillary Clinton said in a Daily News editorial board meeting yesterday that the practice is acceptable in some circumstances.

Clinton got a rousing reception from the human rights community, and seemed to take an uncharacteristically bright-line stance, in a recent statement on the Senate floor during the debate over torture.

But at yesterday’s Daily News editorial board meeting, it emerged that she’s not actually against torture in all instances, and that her dispute with McCain and Bush is largely procedural.

She was asked about the “ticking time bomb” scenario, in which you’ve captured the terrorist and don’t have time for a normal interrogation, and said that there is a place for what she called “severity,” in a conversation that included mentioning waterboarding, hypothermia, and other techniques commonly described as torture.

“I have said that those are very rare but if they occur there has to be some lawful authority for pursuing that,” she responded. “Again, I think the President has to take responsibilty. There has to be some check and balance, some reporting. I don’t mind if it’s reporting in a top secret context. But that shouldn’t be the tail that wags the dog, that should be the exception to the rule.”

Asked again about these methods, she said:

“In those instances where we have sufficient basis to believe that there is something imminent, yeah, but then we’ve got to have a check and balance.”

Thanks for the update teakwoodkite, I thought I was the only one paying attention to what I believe waaay more important then he said she said Obama said Hillary said …ad naseum

You are correct sir!! My error…I wonder if Hillary has more pantsuits than Imelda had shoes??????

No Bill Keyes you are not alone in thinking political expediency should not win out over prosecuting these bastards if we really are a nation of laws… I would “frog march” them to the square in Riyadh after “fair” “Habeas free” military “tribunal” for a Saudi display of affection.

With the State of the Onion on Monday I can’t wait to hear the 16 words!!

Sorry I rant…