Breaking: Gen. Clark Responds to Latest Obama Attack
By SusanUnPC on December 28, 2007 at 4:48 PM in Clinton, Current Affairs, Nuclear weapons, Obama, Pakistan, counterterrorism
| “This is a time for leadership, not politics. Senator Obama’s campaign seems to believe that Senator Clinton’s actions led to the tragic events in Pakistan. This is an incredible and insulting charge. It politicizes a tragic event of enormous strategic consequence to the United States and the world, and it has no place in this campaign.” - Gen. Wesley Clark |
CHECK THIS OUT: There’s Steve Clemons, a studious, cerebral expert on international and domestic policy, who I’ve never seen write like this:
Did Biden, Dodd and Edwards Kill Bhutto Too?
What the hell is Obama chief political strategist David Axelrod doing?
Nearly all of the major papers and a good slug of blogs have been stunned by his comment that Hillary Clinton bore some responsibility for Benazir Bhutto’s demise. When Obama has to backpedal for his team, something is up. …
CHECK THIS OUT: “Obama Stammers, ‘No, I, I, I, I, I…’ Sticking Up for Axelrod” from Taylor Marsh: “Obama came apart when Wolf Blitzer asked him a simple question about Axelrod” … “Lynn Sweet of the Sun Times nails the quote and the context, but also nails Obama …” (See all below the fold.)
CHECK THIS OUT: In early December, CBS Evening News asked each candidate, “Which country scares you the most?”
Sen. Hillary Clinton: Pakistan (see the Dec. 12 CBS video)
Sen. Barack Obama: Iran (see the Dec. 12 CBS video)
CHECK THIS OUT: The contrast, from Sen. Clinton today on Wolf Blitzer’s CNN Situation Room:
CHECK THIS OUT: “For me, someone who has been studying the region for years, the obvious is that you can’t know the dynamics without traveling to Pakistan and the surrounding countries. Being an armchair analyst is not only difficult but often gets you into trouble, no matter how dedicated a researcher you are. …”
That’s from Taylor Marsh’s new post, “It’s Al Qaeda… Not so Fast,” which also features the key video above, a preview of the long interview that CNN’s Wolf Blitzer conducted with Sen. Clinton today. (Blitzer is also hosting Sen. Chris Dodd.)
:::::::
CHECK THIS OUT: Here’s the Chicago Sun-Times’s Lynn Sweet story — “Obama says, “No, I, I, I, I,” — via Taylor Marsh:
Blitzer asked, “Your chief political strategist, David Axelrod, causing some commotion out there today with his comments about Hillary Clinton, and blaming her—at least some are interpreting it this way—blaming her in part for a series of events that resulted in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination today. Let me read to you what he said.”
Obama replied—and I think I nailed the quote here—“No, I, I, I, I, I have to, I heard, I heard, I don’t need it, I don’t need to hear what you read because I was, I overheard it when he said it, and this is one of those situations where Washington is putting a spin on it. It makes no sense whatsoever.”
(Might you wonder what “I overheard it” means? One should not read this literally. Obama was not standing near Axelrod when he was talking to reporters after the speech. A bunch of reporters were interviewingAxelrod near the press risers at the back of the hall.)
Blitzer continued, “Tell us what he meant. Tell us what he meant.”
Obama said, “He was—he was—he was asked very specifically about the argument that the Clinton folks were making that somehow this was going to change the dynamic of politics in Iowa.
(At this point it was the reporter making the argument–asking if the assassination would bring the campaigns more to foreign policy and “that’s been more Hillary Clinton’s sort of strength, is that is that…that’s what the Clinton campaign will say, that this plays right into her strength.”)Obama: “Now, first of all, that shouldn’t have been the question.”
(Disputing a question is a technique Obama has used in the presidential debates when confronted with being asked something he did not want to specifically have to respond to.)
Perhaps you should change the name of this blog to “All Hillary All the Time”?
But… that moniker already belongs to Taylor Marsh’s blog. And believe me, the Hillary support over here seems careful and benign compared to the blatant hostility over there.
At least they still allow (and even welcome) dissent here.
Nevertheless, it is getting pretty ridiculous here. It seems like ANY subject can be used as an excuse to promote Hillary in some way or other.
Shirin writes: It seems like ANY subject can be used as an excuse to promote Hillary in some way or other.
Oh, bah-ruther. Yes, [laughing] just as any subject can be used as an excuse to slander Hillary– as you know as well as anyone, darlin’.
For heaven’s sake, stop whining.
Oh, get a grip, Chris. Not all criticism of Hillary is slander. Why don’t you save that nonsense for those who focus not on her record, not on her clear statements, but on her personally - something I have never done.
During the CNN segment where the candidates were asked to identify the most dangerous country in the world, John Edwards also identified Pakistan, the only other candidate than Hilary who did so. I thought it was very telling that the others robotically, ignorantly, and pandering answered Iran.
Indeed, Iran is not and never has been dangerous.
But Hillary and Edwards are both wrong in any case. The most dangerous country in the world is the United States of America. What other country throughout history has caused as much damage, instability, and upheaval in the world as the United States has? And during what period of history has the United States been more dangerous than it has been in the last seven years?
>>> What other country throughout history has caused as much damage, instability, and upheaval in the world as the United States has?
Historically, post 1200 A.D., adjusted for world population and in no particular order: Spain, France, Great Britain, 1860 - 1939 Germany and 1905 - 1943 Japan.
Second tier: USSR, Portugal, Holland.
In our lifetimes, however, and post - 1963, we in the USA are the reigning champs, with the USSR a close second.
Oops! Forgot the Ottoman Empire!
“What other country throughout history has caused as much damage, instability, and upheaval in the world as the United States has?”
Roman Empire
Brilliant woman indeed, and while we are at it can we call for an independent international investigation of who killed the Kennedys and Malcolm and Medgar and Martin. ( After all we no longer have a free press and we certainly have a compromised Federal Justice system ). We have lived with the Spectretacular fake investigation for 44 years now and still don’t know who killed that man.
She does fully and truly represent all the insufferable arrogance and self-righteousness of Bush/Clinton America.
Of course it is important that AMERICA know who offed a pretty criminal pol in Pakistan it will allow AipacBlitzer to point fingers of fear at someone.
Time does not always “heal all wounds.” What I don’t hear is any context.
Attempt to understand the workings of the business of politics, you get a lifetime of work
Attempt to understand the workings of the business of religion, same.
Attempt to understand the combination and you have to be mad to begin with.
Every so often folks come along and want to re fight the crusades. Unlike most of those that spend their time recreating the american civil war, the crusades always inspires real ammunition and extreme carnage that includes real blood.
obama isn’t ready for foreign policy, he doesn’t have the instincts. bush didn’t either, but he knew it, and used career diplomats to tell him how to respond. obama’s ego won’t allow that. too bad.
John Edwards said that Obama is living in “never-never land.”
– via ABC News
More:
That’s well said. I thought Edwards was good with Wolf Blitzer last night, when Blitzer subbed on Larry King Live.
Here’s the never-never land bit:
Oh yeah, and Bush’s foreign policy has been SUUUUUCH a huge success!
Seriously, could Obama do any worse?!
Respectfully,
Seriously, could Obama do any better?! is the question.
Shirin writes: Seriously, could Obama do any worse?!
Wow, what a bumper sticker that’d make:
OBAMA 2008:
NO WORSE THAN BUSH!
But seriously, as pointed out in Susan’s post above, Iran is Obama’s greatest worry, and Pakistan Hillary’s.
This is supposed to tell you something. Forgetting for the moment the many times you’ve mischaracterized Hillary’s stance on Iran, doesn’t this make it clear to you that Obama’s worldview is the myopic view of the neocons, as opposed to the more realistic appraisal offered by Hillary?
Right, why’d I ask.
Good to hear from you CV. I’m glad I didn’t a mouthful of coffee when I read your post.
Chris, just in case you have not picked up on this, I am NOT an Obama fan.
See, just because I don’t agree with Hillary Clinton that does not make me an advocate of Obama for president. I know that might be a difficult concept for you, but try to wrap your mind around it.
Thank you SusanUnPC and Larry. The diaries here are good for the ‘reality-based’ soul.
Barack Obama is not ready for prime time.
The truism that there are No Second Acts in American political life was disproved by Nixon in 1968, but may well be on its way to reaffirmation by Obama in 2008.
This is regrettable, as he has a gift of charisma that would be a major asset.
Unfortunately, he lacks the knowledge and will to run a campaign based on much more than that.
Again, channeling Gary Hart.
What could be more important than charisma as a qualification for political office?! But then, such is the superficiality with which Americans choose their leaders.
If you can’t get the electorate to pull your lever, you’ll never enjoy an opportunity to demonstrate your grasp of foreign policy or your vision of governance.
ALso comes in handy in dealing with other leaders, decision - makers and stakeholders, foreign and domestic.
Truly the Achilles Hell of American republican government.
To Barack:
“You never turned around to see the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns
When they all come down and did tricks for you
You never understood that it ain’t no good
You shouldn’t let other people get your kicks for you
You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain’t it hard when you discover that
He really wasn’t where it’s at
After he took from you everything he could steal.
How does it feel
How does it feel
To be on your own…”
By Bob Dylan
“Like A Rolling Stone”
http://bobdylan.com/songs/rolling.html
Taters: It’s not fair bringing Dylan into any conversation involving politics..
You know the rules..
( It’s like bringing a tank to a knive fight )
Hope you had a great Christmas..
Hiya HoosierHoops,
OK..(head hung down)That verse just seemed SO> appropriate Hoopster.
Christmas was great, and yours?
Did you speak to Jordan?
PS Is Tinsley alright?
Sorry about all the bold,Hoops, I must have done something wrong. It looks like I’m yellin’..
And I’ll match you with another R. Zimmerman classic:
“Because something is happening here
But you don’t know what it is
Do you, Mister Jones?”
Obama is this country’s only hope of moving past the Baby-Boomer fights that have been raging for 40 years. It is so time to put this generation behind us - and as much as I like Bill Clinton, Hillary isn’t the one to get past this constant crap.
If the youth would just get out and vote - we might have a shot at fixing this mess.
– Mitchman
….It is so time to put this generation behind us….
What is with the use of the word “SO” so incorrectly in American English — or is this tacky trend coming from the British? At any rate, it’s SO ridiculous! And by the way, your boy, Obama, isn’t ready to be president.
…..It is so time to put this generation behind us…..
This sentence is incorrect! The word “SO” is a substitute for “VERY”. “It’s very/so nice”. “He is very/so happy”.
Mitchman’s sentence would be correct if it were written like this: “It is time or it is NOW time to put this generaton behind us”. It is SO time is not correct!
The British have adapted the American use of the word, “SO” and they are using it incorrectly. Americans, please don’t get into the habit of using this tacky British slang.
You would have to explain why they are waiting 3 hours in a line that was not for a concert.
This we have not done enough of.
until this time i have been somewhat guarded in my remarks about obama … my criticism of him was based on his record and i clearly identified what was my opinion. i will continue to do so but i no longer feel constrained by what is in “good taste.” obama and his chief aide not only went over the line of good taste but their remarks could also have a negative effect on the situation in pakistan. and for what … like the good general said … for political gain.
truthfully, i would have expected the republicans to make this kind of attack on hillary … not a fellow democrat. this unfortunate situation can not be ignored … it was classless and in the poorest of taste. personally, i would be most embarassed to be a democrat if obama does win the nomination … deeply embarassed.
Susan,
First rate work and research. Bury them with facts. Obama is an attractive but empty suit.
Larry:
Did you see the real story of the charlie wilson war on the history channel?
gripping tale with lots of CIA background..
No doubt. Unfortunately there is at least one very serious historical inaccuracy in that film:
Ooops - sorry! I should try to remember to make sure I am fully awake before replying to something. The historical inaccuracy is in the Tom Hanks movie, not the History Channel story.
“Disputing a question is a technique Obama has used in the presidential debates when confronted with being asked something he did not want to specifically have to respond to.”
Without defending Obama, I would like to point out that disputing a question is a technique that one also uses when one’s opponent (or a biased moderator) is attempting to unfairly frame the debate.
Larry,
I respect your opinions, but there can be no denying the mess in Pakistan is a result of poor judgment of going into Iraq. Our focus should always have been the Pakistan and Afghanistan border and hunting down al Qaida. Instead we attack Iraq taking most of our resources with no end in site. We now have volatile situations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan from this decision.
To add fuel to the fire Bush has trusted Musharraf to hunt down al qaida to the tune of $10 billion. I am afraid to see what Bush’s plan B is to this situation.
Any Congress person who voted to attack Iraq holds responsibility in some part to this situation. To this day Hillary still won’t admit attacking Iraq was a bad choice in hindsight. That is a concern to me when she will not admit this has been a mistake. As we keep reaping what we sowed, how long will it take for Hillary to admit it was a mistake to go into Iraq? If a leader won’t recognize mistakes, how can we ever find solutions? Hasn’t the Bush administration been a glaring example of leadership who won’t admit mistakes and keep making more?
Hillary does not have my vote for this reason.
Melissa, it’s not always all about us (see http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/its-not-about-you/).
Pakistan’s problems march back 60 years. To be sure, the US has not necessarily helped, but at the bottom, these are their problems and not ours.
Secondly, the war in Iraq is Bush&Co’s war - not the Democrats war and I personally resent it when a Dem runnng for office tries to make it otherwise.
I wish the Dems had been aggressive in not funding the Uraq adventure, but Reid and Pelosi have been doing what Obama says he wants to do - negotiate and compromise - and it hasn’t worked out very well so far.
And, speaking of funding, I’d take Obama’s protestations far more seriously if he had voted AGAINST any of the funding bills or even given a speech from the Senate floor pointing out that all these funding bills are “emergency” funding and thus don’t fall under budgeting, but so far, he has voted for the funding or not been present and I haven’t found any speeches.
I’m not a Democrat and so don’t have a pony in this show, but I will be voting for the Democrat in the GE, I’d just prefer it be a person with maturity and a vision for the United States, rather than a personality.
Grant it there is 60 years of turbulence in Pakistan but you are kidding yourself if the USA actions have not had any bearing on what is happening now. The Bush administration has scratched Musharraf’s back for 4 years pretending he is “democracy”. The Bush administration encouraged Bhutto to go back to Pakistan and run again. The Bush administration has ignored the growing control of al Qaida and Taliban in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And most of all the Bush administration has ignored the Musharraf military control of that country. And through this whole time pumped $10 billion into Musharraf’s hands.
The problem area from day one has been the Pakistan and Afghanistan border. Iraq was a mistake. Any presidential candidate that can’t admit that, does not have my vote.
The Bush administration has scratched Musharraf’s back for 4 years pretending he is “democracy”.
And protected this man
On the morning of September 11, Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad, the alleged “money-man” behind the 9-11 hijackers, was at a breakfast meeting on Capitol Hill hosted by Senator Bob Graham and Rep. Porter Goss, the chairmen of the Senate and House Intelligence committees.
“When the news [of the attacks on the World Trade Center] came, the two Florida lawmakers who lead the House and Senate intelligence committees were having breakfast with the head of the Pakistani intelligence service. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Sanibel, Sen. Bob Graham and other members of the House Intelligence Committee were talking about terrorism issues with the Pakistani official when a member of Goss’ staff handed a note to Goss, who handed it to Graham. “We were talking about terrorism, specifically terrorism generated from Afghanistan,” Graham said.
of the United States,” Graham said.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO206A.html
There is some real “odd” reporting around these meetings.
re: Pakistan’s Chief Spy General Mahmoud Ahmad,
and you don’t any of it in the 9/11 commission report.
Has Hillary made an issue of it? Any of the major candidates question it?
Melissa, damaging U.S. meddling in Pakistan goes back well before Bush and Musharraf. The U.S. weakened secular elements and strengthened extreme religious ones a long time ago, resulting in big changes in Pakistani society over time.
Bush is not the only one with the reverse Midas touch.
Seeing Hillary mentioning Pakistan on Dec. 12 just tells me that she was given notice of something.
I came upon an article where Bhutto was critical of Hillary and Bill for ignorning her plight.
Now she’s useful in death to win an election. Ugh.
Actually, you’re right. I called Hillary on the 11th to tell her that my tech people had just finished the killer door handle and were flying out to install it surreptitiously in her campaign vehicle. Bill is paying me off now with a couple of spare bimbos, but I’m going to be the Director of the CIA when Hillary gets elected (sorry, Larry). Blackwater didn’t take the protection contract because I called up Cofer and told him that I was working for Hillary and we were going to do the Bhutto hit. Cofer thanked me for the heads up and said something like, “At least you haven’t hitched your wagon to a guy who is apologizing for secretly believing in polygamy.” We all go way back, you see, and a blue badge is thicker than blood.
Will she read the memos that come across a presidents desk? Say a Presidential Daily Briefing like this one?
“bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US”
August 6, 2001
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html
Hillary said she did not read the NIE prior to the vote on the AUMF. I have not heard why, since those that did read it, ala Durbin, voted NO.
Door handles kill. LOL! I do wonder if the Bhutto good-bye Musharraf plans to kill me letter reached the Hillary camp.
I’m watching Hillary now talking about how we need to warn the feudal elite of Pakistan on what it takes to guard their interests. WTF? She’s also critical of Musharraf and just mentioned the blank check we’ve given them.
Interesting.
Clinton said. “I think it is a very big mistake to telegraph that and to destabilize the Musharraf regime, which is fighting for its life against the Islamic extremists who are in bed with al Qaeda and Taliban….So you can think big, but remember, you shouldn’t always say everything you think if you’re running for president, because it has consequences across the world.’’
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2007/08/public_warm_to_us_action_in_pa.html
Please knock it off with the conspiracy crap. As much as I have anxieties about Clinton’s plans for the Oval Office, to even imply that she was somehow informed beforehand of a conspiracy to kill Bhutto is so far over the line it tumbles over the cliff.
This kind of thinking allowed this administration and people in government to get away with murder in the past.
We don’t know if anyone knew of plans to kill her…yet.
We do know people were prepared for it to happen.
Let me add this. Are you going to tell me that her warmongering advisor wasn’t preparing Hillary for this recent turmoil in Pakistan?
Op-Ed Contributors
Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem
By FREDERICK W. KAGAN and MICHAEL O’HANLON
Published: November 18, 2007
Washington
AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think — now — about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?_r=4&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Thus the game of Empire continues.
I have been harping on the problem of Hillary Clinton’s association with pundit-hawk Michael O’Hanlon for weeks now. But in light of the turmoil developing in Pakistan, this article of Michael O’Hanlon’s has become particularly chilling.
As Clinton advisor Richard Holbrooke said about Hillary very recently:
“She is probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband,” says Holbrooke, a former adviser to Bill Clinton. “Hillary Clinton is a classic national-security Democrat. She is better at framing national-security issues for the current era than her husband was at a common point in his career.”
Hillary Clinton should be forced to:
Renounce all association with Michael O’Hanlon. She might, at the same time, dissociate herself from such inveterate Iraq hawks as General Keane and Krepinovich. But dumping O’Hanlon is necessary.
She should state publicly that she does not support O’Hanlon and Kagan’s idea of sending American troops to Pakistan. We already have enough war on our plate.
During the early coverage of the Bhutto assassination on MSNBC, Mika Brzezinski got a chance to talk to her father, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Obama supporter and foreign policy advisor, about the developing turmoil in Pakistan. He addressed more than just the assassination, but the flaw in our policy with regards to Pakistan:
(No link)
I think the United States should not get involved in Pakistani politics. I deplore the absence of democracy in Pakistan, but I think admonitions from outside, injecting exile politicians into Pakistan, telling the Pakistan president what he should or should not wear, that he should take off his uniform, I don’t really think this is America’s business and I don’t think it helps to consolidate stability in Pakistan.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/29/44841/886/669/427506
Sorry folks. I’d pick the candidate with an advisor is who saying what Zbig is saying.
“She should state publicly that she does not support O’Hanlon and Kagan’s idea of sending American troops to Pakistan. We already have enough war on our plate.”
The author is a bit out of touch with Hillary Clinton’s record and statements when it comes to the use of the military. She clearly does NOT think the U.S. has enough war on its plate. If she did, then she would not have announced her intention to 1) significantly enlarge the military, 2) significantly increase the military budget.
Why would she need a larger military if she were not planning to send United States troops into even MORE countries than Bush has? Why would she need to increase the military budget if she were not intending to spend even more money on military adventures? I have asked these questions over and over again in a variety of venues, and so far not one person has even attempted to address them.
Oh, yes, and Obama is no better in this regard. He, too, has proudly announced his intention to enlarge both the military and its budget.
I fear that we are seeing the planning of Democratic “good war” in Pakistan.
This person is onboard already.
Democrats: Redeploy troops from Iraq
US Should Redeploy Troops From Iraq to Fight in Pakistan and Afghanistan, Congresswoman Says
NATASHA T. METZLER
AP News
Dec 29, 2007 12:34 EST
The United States should redeploy troops from Iraq, allowing the military to focus on terrorist threats in Pakistan and Afghanistan, New York Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand said Saturday.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/mochila/Democrats_Redeploy_troops_from_Iraq_12292007.html
Unfortunately said candidate is not saying what his advisor Zbig is saying.
it was likely to happen. being prepared is a good thing - it suggests she and her team may have a knack for contingency planning.
Cee - Yes, lots of people, including myself, were prepared for it to happen. After all, she’d received a multitude of death threats, and an attempted assassination was made on her life her first day back in Pakistan in October. While I was shocked at the news of her murder this week, I was not surprised. Was anyone?
I found the article.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B0CE5D91F30F93AA35752C0A96E958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=7
Ms. Bhutto described the investigation as a persecution. At one point she attacked the Clinton Administration, saying it had ignored her plight while deploring the treatment of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese opposition leader and Nobel laureate.
Oh, puleeeeze! What a whiner! She compares her self and her situation to Aung San Suu Kyi?! Come OOOOOOONNN!
Isn’t that pitiful?
Rather than her recent complaining about security she should have spent some of her own stolen funds to guard her life. Bad move.
If this little clip that CNN keeps showinging is accurate, her security ducked when the shots were fired. Where is Blackwater when you need them the most?
Oh hell! Blackwater would have killed at least a hundred people and wounded a few hundred more.
But Bhutto would still be alive. They protect whoever is the principal at all or any costs.
You mean at all and any costs to any dark skinned “locals” (is it clear that this is a demeaning, colonialist term?) who have the misfortune to be nearby when they are coming through. They are trained to run over children rather than stop, they habitually run Iraqi vehicles off the road (they are not really much worse than the American troops in those regards, I am afraid), and they do seem to enjoy a good shooting rampage as well, and the more hajjis they can “take out”, the better (also enjoyed by an unfortunate number of American troops, sorry to say).
While the result maybe similar Shirin, American Troops are the point of the spear which is connected to a shaft that is under civilian leadership. Equating American service men and women with Merc’s is insulting. The fact that Merc’s are in theater shows that executing “lawful orders” is not the prime concern to the civilian leadership. How many in command have complained about these cowboys running through the lines?
they are not really much worse than the American troops in those regards, I am afraid
I don’t understand. So, are you suggesting that when American troops commit the same sorts of crimes and atrocities as mercenaries, it is somehow better? That deliberately running over a child who gets in your way is not so bad if done by the military? That running over and destroying Iraqis’ property is not so terrible if the one doing it is wearing a military uniform? That spraying bullets into a crowd of civilians is more acceptable if done by a U.S. soldier?
Indeed, I DO equate American service men and women with mercenaries when they commit the same sorts of acts. In fact, I would take a bit further. How many Iraqi cities have been destroyed by mercenaries? How many have been destroyed by American service men and women? And does that somehow mean it is NOT a crime against humanity to destroy a city simply because it was done by American service men and women acting under civilian leadership?
I really do not understand this sort of thinking at all.
I really do not understand this sort of thinking at all.
I said ‘executing
“lawful orders” is not the prime concern to the civilian leadership’
The Iraq war is illegal.
Civilian leadership should be convicted under RICO and in the HAGUE for war crimes, from the head of the snake to it’s rattle.
That said, respectfully, I will not be the one to explain the difference between a Merc and the Armed Forces of the US and why it is insulting to think they are the same thing. Someone who knows first hand can explain it to you.
Teakwoodkite, pardon me for not appreciating the finer points of military versus mercenary. I am not concerned about anything except their deeds and the effects of same. Anyone - ANYONE - who sets a policy of running over children and grandmothers, anyone - ANYONE - who issues such an order, and anyone - ANYONE - who follows such an order is a subhuman criminal who needs to be locked up, no matter who they are or under whose auspices they do it.
That was my point. Thank you.
The above was directed to Retired.
To all those who think Obama is not ready for prime-time, lets us not forget the obvious and unavoidable fact.
The recently incumbent co-president, then US senator, and leading light of the Democratic party, utterly failed all of us by voting to authorize this war, and has never had the courage since then to admit it.
After utterly failing us in the nineties on health-care.
Obama might not be as ready as he should be, but I am willing to take the chance, given the alternative of one who has been to the big show, and has utterly failed on the most important issues of the day.
Enough with the old dinosaurs. I get the sense that most of the Hillary supporters (the only ones who are in any sense really excited about her) are the old Clinton hands who have always assumed she would be the nominee, who never say Obama coming, and who are just trying to set themselves up for a nice gig in the next administration
Irony of all ironies. Clinton ‘08 is like the Humphry of 68, the Muskie of 72. The unimaginative establishment candidate.
I bet most people here, deep down inside, really wished they were out on the cutting edge. My advice? Just dont burn all your bridges in these last few weeks. There is a new day coming, and y’all will find it pretty exciting too.
“[Hillary] utterly failed all of us by voting to authorize this war, and has never had the courage since then to admit it.”
She has followed up by enthusiastically supporting the invasion and occupation of Iraq with both her votes and her words, and she clearly has every intention of enjoying the imperial fruits of her precessor’s misdeeds. Further, she has made clear her fondness of the military as a tool of foreign policy, and historically has never met a military action she didn’t enthusiastically support.
Compare that to Obama, who makes a big deal about how he opposed invading Iraq from the beginning. The trouble is that no one will ever know whether he would or would not have voted to authorize it because he wasn’t a Senator at the time. However, he HAS voted in lockstep with Hillary since he has been in the Senate (when he hasn’t ducked difficult votes completely, that is), his statements on the Iraqi situation have not been those of consistent, reasoned opposition and he, too, has indicated that he is in no hurry at all to make a full withdrawal.
On top of that, he has made clear his belief in the military as a tool of foreign policy, even to the point of declaring his willingness to bomb an ally if the ally wasn’t sufficiently effective in complying with the will of the United States.
Oh yes, and he SO GETS why “they hate us” - and he gets it without ever studying, visiting or even really talking to them. He knows they “hate us” because they are only hearing bad stuff about us from our enemies. And he has the solution, too - BETTER P.R.!!!!! No need to change how the U.S. conducts itself with respect to the Arabs and Muslims as long as you have the right P.R. So, he’s gonna send herds of young, fresh-faced Americans all over the Muslim world to tell Muslims how woooonnnnderful the U.S. really is. And he’s gonna set up “America Houses” in cities aaaaalllll over the Muslims world, and they’ll have - gasp of delight! - INTERNET CAFES in them, ’cause everyone knows that there are NO internet cafes in Muslim countries (outside, of course, of one on every corner, that is), and - drum roll please! - they will have ENGLISH CLASSES! ‘Cause everyone knows people in the Muslim world don’t have any way to learn English (except in school, of course), and they will be soooo grateful to the Americans for teaching them that they will overlook its horrible policies and practices. How brilliant is THAT plan!
D’accord.
Obama is just still too green to be president material, IMO. He has superb potential, and I would be willing to say that he could easily be president once he gets some heavy duty experience. But that is not now.
Hillary is definitely smart, and informed, has good experience with tough issues. I have defended her on a number of blogs wrt various issues or PR stumbles. This does not mean that she is my first choice in the primary season. It just means that it is important to maintain a reasonable perspective. I do wish that she were not so beholden to AIPAC. This is not a deal breaker if she is the nominee, but…
My first choice right now is Chris Dodd. Very close behind him is Edwards, however being part of the reality based community, I understand that Dodd’s smaller financial support may not be enough to sustain his campaign for as long as need be. Edwards has the edge on representing the disappearing middle class in an unreliable economic situation that looks to be even more volatile –probably coinciding with the exit of the current mal-administrators. Even so, his presidential campaign is a tough row to hoe.
But nowhere in the field of primary choices for me is Mr Obama. He has voted “present” on controversial issues many times. [I like my candidate to put his/her vote where their mouth is.] He is a great speaker when his notes are prepared. However, he cannot articulate his thoughts on the spot. [Perhaps because he has not prepared his thoughts? Maybe not. I dunno.] To be fair, I think that overall, he “gets it”. But now that he gets it, he needs to pursue the substance of experience. Not merely the concept of experience.
Okay then. Thanks for reading the Friday night ramblings of a poor, exhausted cricket. See you all “next year” (ha ha ha).
Oh, and regardless of the eventual nominee — I WILL vote for the democratic ticket in the general election, that includes Obama.
Let’s be real. Who is ever really “experienced” for the job of President? I think being President is on the job training. The best we can do is vote for the person who shows sound judgment and who will be honest. And most of all vote for the person who will hold the interests of the American people the utmost importance. We haven’t had any of that the past 7 years.
Seems he is the only one who has been right.
Kucinich continued, “Senators Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd voted to give the President the authorization to go to war in Iraq. Their judgment was wrong. They and Senator Obama have voted to continue funding that war. Their judgment was wrong.
NOT the only one.
Members of the House of Representatives are, by MSM definition, not serious.
Ex-Governors are semi-serious
Sitting senators are “very serious.” Ex-senators not so much.
Ex-mayors and ex-actors/lobbyists are “sorta serious.”
Al Gore and Wes Clark, with responsible people working with them might turn our sorry mess around. Sane people have to replace the thousands of appointees. We will need years just to clean up, if we have them?
the indie team that can take the vote and end the need for either party. Both have failed us miserably and do not deserve our vote.