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

Sorry I rant…

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.”

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.

Absolutely unforgivable. But it is in reality much worse.

Regarding what she knew about Iraq, see again:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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