Hillary and Iraq at 3AM

[GeoffD]

What's with the 3AM phone call? Did I miss something? Why would we want Sen. Clinton to answer the phone at 3AM? She voted to authorize the war in Iraq, because she thought she was authorizing "negotiations". She now says she wishes she could have that vote "back". Do overs at 3 AM?
I'd rather have Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain answer that phone; probably even Ralph Nader for that matter....

[LuciusBeebe]

I don't see how it matters WHO "answers the phone". They still consult the same Pentagon.

[troublesome one]

It's because she brings "a lifetime of experience to the job."

Excuse me, but don't we all bring "a lifetime of experience" to anything we do? Or is Hillary inferring that Obama would only bring half his life experience? :)

[LuciusBeebe]

35 years in the private sector! Wow!

[james_t]

All the talk of Sen. Clinton's many years of political experience as first lady makes me wonder if the Dems aren't now lending credence to the jokes I heard when Bill Clinton was in office about how Hillary was the one really running things.

(For instance, "Why does the Secret Service protect Hillary so closely? Because if anything happened to her, Bill would become president." I've also heard a variations of the same joke with Cheney being protected because Bush would become president, etc.)

[troublesome one]

Oh, and don't forget she was First Lady. Now THAT'S where the heavy lifting in foreign policy is done.

If she was truly clueless about Bill boinkin' anything that moved (as she claims), how can we trust her judgement in negotiating and enforcing treaties?

[Copycatted]

It's because she brings "a lifetime of experience to the job."

Excuse me, but don't we all bring "a lifetime of experience" to anything we do? Or is Hillary inferring that Obama would only bring half his life experience? :)

As in who was part of the problem wouldn't want the do-over now,you got that right troublesome one. New blood then or the new blood now,and I'm yet trusting he/43 will/better.

[LuciusBeebe]

Kinda makes the claim by that Arkansas State trooper that he "procured hundreds of women" for Billy between '82 and '85 absolutlely beliveable.

3 known affairs makes hundreds in 3 years believable?

[tandjflo]

That would still put Bill 9,700 behind Wilt on the all-time scoring list.

[tandjflo]

3 known affairs makes hundreds in 3 years believable?

You're right. How can I rely on the math skills of a product of the Arkansas school system.... Probly' could only count to 99 or so and said the heck with it, "der was hunderds of 'em"

[GeoffD]

And, furthermore, doesn't this play right into the Republicans hands? After all, if "lifetime experience" is the criterion for answering the phone 3AM call, how can Sen. Clinton compete with Sen. McCain (longer experience in govt., military service, POW experience)?
And, if she can't get Iraq right (and Iran, either, I might add), why should we suppose that a North Korea or a Myanmar or a whatever would be different?

[evilkumquat]

Her campaign needs to stop all the Dem bashing and McCain praising.

All she is doing is feeding this country's enemies ammo to use against Obama this fall.

Nothing has shown with greater clarity that Clinton cares for nothing other than her own selfish grab for power than her recent negative ads and statements.

A couple months ago, I would have leaned toward Obama in the primary, but it would have been a tough call.

Today... not so tough.

Evil Kumquat

[LuciusBeebe]

A couple months ago, I would have leaned toward Obama in the primary, but it would have been a tough call.

Today... not so tough.

Evil Kumquat

This.

Its amazing how something as simple as attitude has made a difference.

[Copycatted]

What's with the 3AM phone call? Did I miss something? Why would we want Sen. Clinton to answer the phone at 3AM? She voted to authorize the war in Iraq, because she thought she was authorizing "negotiations". She now says she wishes she could have that vote "back". Do overs at 3 AM?
I'd rather have Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain answer that phone; probably even Ralph Nader for that matter....

Besides for the lie that was fed to our former Secretary of State and so many others that made them all out to be MEET THE DUMBOS but add to that your find GeoffD that while before the United Nations/world the former Secretary of State might have possibly thought THAT HE TOO was authorizing "negociations"
causes me to ask the remenising question Oh all the Kings horses,Oh all the Kings men,where are you now when we need you so :questionmark:

This after all the scandalous thoughts made from the most recent Military Officials public announcement of their retirement...and no pun intended GeoffD but whether 3:00am or even HIGH NOON did you ever make and important phone to you and end up answering to an automated service? If you are a Vet/Patient of the V.A. system then you are aware of HOW an Patients pacience gits tried at the simpilist of things:stupid:

[GeoffD]

I'm not exactly sure what FaffUp is getting at but to me, one thing is clear: Sen. Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq in 2002, when September 11 was still fresh in people's memories and war fever was high. He made a bold speech that some considered political suicide but now we see that he had it right before almost anyone else. Sounds pretty good at 3AM to me.
And, if that were not enough, Senator Clinton voted to support President Bush's policy towards Iran (Senator Obama opposed this bill) and gave him the benefit of the doubt at the very moment when President Bush was wailing loudestly and rattling his saber most mightily. 3AM judgment in action again? More like missing in action, I think.

[Copycatted]

Was keeping "the cart" on this side of the elections Geoff. On the same point though try calling either of them at 3AM now and most likely there'd be an busy signal.

But did you see that "unsheduled dabate" between the two of them on the floor of the Senate today?

If not don't ask me what was being said,Media I got it from stated they had no idea either. But... :questionmark:

[LuciusBeebe]

I'm not exactly sure what FaffUp is getting at but to me, one thing is clear: Sen. Obama was opposed to the war in Iraq in 2002, when September 11 was still fresh in people's memories and war fever was high. He made a bold speech that some considered political suicide but now we see that he had it right before almost anyone else. Sounds pretty good at 3AM to me.
And, if that were not enough, Senator Clinton voted to support President Bush's policy towards Iran (Senator Obama opposed this bill) and gave him the benefit of the doubt at the very moment when President Bush was wailing loudestly and rattling his saber most mightily. 3AM judgment in action again? More like missing in action, I think.

All true. What I think that did, more than anything else, was prove to people that he would follow what he believed was right.

Obama's competition haven't figured this out. They seem to think that the people like him because he opposed the war first. Not true. We like him because he was one of the few Democrats that didn't trade their spine in when the fire got too hot. So now they ALL oppose the war.

Reminds of Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby.

[Copycatted]

All true. What I think that did, more than anything else, was prove to people that he would follow what he believed was right.

Obama's competition haven't figured this out. They seem to think that the people like him because he opposed the war first. Not true. We like him because he was one of the few Democrats that didn't trade their spine in when the fire got too hot. So now they ALL oppose the war.

Reminds of Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby.

I must :dito: myself again Mr. L.B. of not knowing what Br'er Rabitt and the Tar Baby is about but I've one too that helped me considerably if invading Iraq was right or not and haven't heard a thing of his whereabouts since the invasion!

As well I :questionmark: just when and IF his card is gonna be turned over on the Judges bench/time's up to be prosecuted as an close working relationship to Saddam Hussein.

At least I am thinking his mug shot was on one of the Most Wanted Deck of cards our Troops were carrying during the invasion or shortly after. And though I never met the guy persoally we all remember him if having kept up to all the saber rattlings/News coverages that led up to the Iraqi invasion (but too the spelling of his name may not be correct)-Terry Azziz

So as nobody wants to git an deck of those cards to see if my mug shot isn't on one of them-smiles just because I thought highly of the guy for having bent my ear/had my attention if an Iraqi invasion was the feasible move or not but when that bending of the ear/gitting attention of the people happens it just so happens to be part of the job description of an Ambassador. Our own Ambassadors do the likewise when having an Embassy in other so called hot spots in the world (so now you might recall if any needing it just who he is since he had allot of News coverage prior to the invasion though no doubt he was advised to be GIT'N OUT OF DODGE/git to the airport :driver: before the invasion occured...and when he got home and eventually got arrested when had he stayed...hmmm,that would of been interesting as to how THAT would of unfolded.)

[james_t]

At least I am thinking his mug shot was on one of the Most Wanted Deck of cards our Troops were carrying during the invasion or shortly after. And though I never met the guy persoally we all remember him if having kept up to all the saber rattlings/News coverages that led up to the Iraqi invasion (but too the spelling of his name may not be correct)-Terry Azziz

According to Wikipedia, Tariq Aziz is currently in prison.

"He surrendered to American forces on April 24, 2003. He was the 43rd, later 25th, of 55 most-wanted Iraqi leadership members sought by U.S. forces after the Fall of Baghdad in the 2003 Iraq War. ... He is set to appear before the Iraq Special Tribunal set up by the Iraq Interim Government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Aziz

[LuciusBeebe]

He was the 43rd, later 25th

Funny, that.

[Copycatted]

According to Wikipedia, Tariq Aziz is currently in prison.

"He surrendered to American forces on April 24, 2003. He was the 43rd, later 25th, of 55 most-wanted Iraqi leadership members sought by U.S. forces after the Fall of Baghdad in the 2003 Iraq War. ... He is set to appear before the Iraq Special Tribunal set up by the Iraq Interim Government."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Aziz

That was an interesting read james_t,thanks

I was aware that the guy confessed Christian faith as well that the Hussein administration sent donations to American Churches prior to the invasion (but again and going back to can we believe everything online) but DOES he even have an Court date set?

I too believe in our way to an speedy trial but also can imagine all the confusions of the cases that are incarserated in our Cuba Base.

But nearly five years now and when these most wanted still wait for their trial in my opinion if this Iraqi Supreme Court has connected any so called unconnected dots to git those Iraq trials over first then the ones incarserated in our Cuba Base should be made simpiler to decide (since terrorism is/was the leading factor of these two different wars and not the two Nations themselves).

It seems simple enough to me that we be waiting on this newly formed Iraqi government to git on-board with every aspect we define as democracy but then again (for any Newbies info) I'm but a x2 disabled/x2 wartime Vet of wars gone by and it SURELY AIN'T my service connected leg injury that finds the words of this inquiry to be so simple :stupid:

Then again after walking or standing for about an hour (as example standing in a check-out lane yesterday) and had I an lap top or any newer such invention while standing there in pain my simplicity had been more blunt DUE TO THE LACK OF CONSENTRATION FROM THE PAIN (of):WHY DON'T YOU JUST FIND YOUR WAY OR GIT OFF THE STICK

Okay,THAT wasn't so
:stupid: while sitting on my $700.00 padded seat :questionmark: (not of an planned job but by inheritance and NO PUN either about that,nor this...)

[GeoffD]

Back to the issue of judgment and experience, recently released (finally!) papers by the former first lady indicate that she had little or nothing to do with Kosovo or the Northern Ireland Peace Process (something of an Al Gore invents the Internet moment). Rather than judge her based on her "claimed" accomplishments, we should look at her documented ones, 1)authorizing the war in Iraq, 2)authorizing similar action against Iran (fortunately, this has not materilaized yet).
Let us remember our old friend, Senator Kerry. He was a reasonably good candidate against an unpopular Bush and he still lost because he was portrayed as a waffler on Iraq. How is Senator Clinton any different? The more things change, the more they stay the same

[LuciusBeebe]

Let us remember our old friend, Senator Kerry. He was a reasonably good candidate against an unpopular Bush and he still lost because he was portrayed as a waffler on Iraq.


Oh, now, let's not forget the ultimate middle finger.

Kerry tossed his medals! Oh my god! His medals?

Forever it was Democrats don't serve in war. But Kerry came along, and even though he served in war... Even though he was decorated in war... Even thought the Republican candidate didn't serve...

HE TOSSED HIS MEDALS!

Sorry, sorry. Its just so funny sometimes.

[GeoffD]

Oh, now, let's not forget the ultimate middle finger.

Kerry tossed his medals! Oh my god! His medals?

Forever it was Democrats don't serve in war. But Kerry came along, and even though he served in war... Even though he was decorated in war... Even thought the Republican candidate didn't serve...

HE TOSSED HIS MEDALS!

Sorry, sorry. Its just so funny sometimes.

Fair enough, I'm not a big fan of John Kerry myself. My point was that waffling on something as critical as a war, namely the Iraq War, will prove fatal in a general election, especially against war hero, ex-POW Senator McCain. How will Senator Clinton spin authorizing the war and then saying that it was a dreadful mistake? This is exactly the waffling that caught up with Kerry, irrespective of tossed medals. And, she can be painted as a serial waffler (see NAFTA, tax cuts, etc.) with some effectiveness. I think McCain is dead wrong on Iraq but he has been incredibly consistent, even when Republicans started to desert the war. I pity the Democrats if they put a waffler up against resolute John McCain. And I fear we may just end up in Iraq for the proverbial 100 years.

[LuciusBeebe]

I think McCain is dead wrong on Iraq but he has been incredibly consistent, even when Republicans started to desert the war. I pity the Democrats if they put a waffler up against resolute John McCain.

Funny, isn't it? That people get more respect for sticking by their mistakes than for correcting them?

I wonder how the editors of the various KPC papers would view their writers if they stood by their mistakes, resolute and unwavering.

[evilkumquat]

Funny, isn't it? That people get more respect for sticking by their mistakes than for correcting them?

I wonder how the editors of the various KPC papers would view their writers if they stood by their mistakes, resolute and unwavering.

THAT argument slays me as well.

I mean, how does the quote go?

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result"...?

Liberals can alter their worldview, accepting that circumstances change and are willing to modify their behavior to accommodate new situations.

Conservatives cling to whatever their position is regardless of any evidence to the contrary.

In an extremely complex world where not even the value of the dollar remains consistent, who do YOU think would make a better leader?

Evil Kumquat

[LuciusBeebe]

Liberals can alter their worldview, accepting that circumstances change and are willing to modify their behavior to accommodate new situations.

Oh, I wouldn't say they're any more adept at it than conservatives, Evil. Both are pretty stubborn.

[evilkumquat]

Oh, I wouldn't say they're any more adept at it than conservatives, Evil. Both are pretty stubborn.

Oh I don't know, Lucius...

Most would believe me a bleeding heart liberal, but within the past few years I have completely changed my mind on several issues for which I once held very strict beliefs.

Granted, it takes a very convincing argument to get me to change my worldview, but at least I accept the fact that whatever I feel in my heart of hearts today could change later, if given new and compelling evidence.

Most conservatives BY DEFINITION will cling steadfast to their position, regardless of evidence. If a conservative was raised from birth thinking the sun revolved around the earth, the last five hundred years of Copernican Theory would do little to change their minds.

Evil Kumquat

[LuciusBeebe]

Most conservatives BY DEFINITION will cling steadfast to their position, regardless of evidence.

What definition are you using?

[evilkumquat]

What definition are you using?

Dictionary.com will suffice:

con·serv·a·tive /kənˈsɜrvətɪv/ Pronunciation[kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv] –adjective
1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.
6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.
7. Mathematics. (of a vector or vector function) having curl equal to zero; irrotational; lamellar.
–noun 8. a person who is conservative in principles, actions, habits, etc.
9. a supporter of conservative political policies.
10. (initial capital letter) a member of a conservative political party, esp. the Conservative party in Great Britain.
11. a preservative.

[LuciusBeebe]

Cool. With 11 different definitions it can be difficult to tell which one is being used. But to be fair to conservatives, politically speaking they're not using the definition that you are when they describe themselves.

[evilkumquat]

Cool. With 11 different definitions it can be difficult to tell which one is being used. But to be fair to conservatives, politically speaking they're not using the definition that you are when they describe themselves.

They may not be using that definition, but for most practical purposes, they fit it to a "T".

[LuciusBeebe]

They may not be using that definition, but for most practical purposes, they fit it to a "T".

Most people do, regardless of political affiliation.

[GeoffD]

Sorry to interrupt the discussion of the definition of conservative, but in many ways, isn't Senator Obama the most conservative candidate in the race, at least, as far as Iraq (and Iran) goes. While Senator McCain continues to support the war in Iraq and Senator Clinton certainly did authorize it, hasn't this war been from the beginning a kind of "nation building" (or more accurately, "nation smashing and attempted nation buidling")? Isn't this anathema to conservatives? The US military now roams the streets of Baghdad, having tea and making friends and builidng a positive image. Is this a conservative use of military power? We base our policy on progress by the Iraqi government (benchmarks). Is this conservative policy? We consider similar action in Iran (McCain supports, Clinton vaguely authorizes). If this is the new foreign policy of the US, we should invade Myanmar and North Korea and Cuba and Uzbekistan and many other places, too. (How about Tibet?) This use of military power to build democracy whether the locals desire it or not is an extremely liberal policy, is it not?
By this measure, Senator Obama's stance is downright conservative. Am I wrong?

[TheBigB]

Am I wrong?

Yes, you are. Because we are fighting the terrorists there, they aren't coming here to fly planes into skyscrapers.:ridinghorse:

[LuciusBeebe]

Sorry to interrupt the discussion of the definition of conservative, but in many ways, isn't Senator Obama the most conservative candidate in the race, at least, as far as Iraq (and Iran) goes.

Yep.

Conservatives SHOULD have backed Ron Paul. But instead, "conservative" has been perverted into a hodge-podge of "kick butt and wave a flag". So the candidate that has the most pro-kick butt message and sports the most lapel pins is viewed by the masses as the most conservative.

[evilkumquat]

Yes, you are. Because we are fighting the terrorists there, they aren't coming here to fly planes into skyscrapers.:ridinghorse:

I really, really hope that statement was being ironic, since Iraq and Saddam Hussein had NOTHING... absolutely NOTHING to do with the attacks in New York.

The only "terrorists" in Iraq are those that the Bush Administration recruited through this illegal war.

[LuciusBeebe]

I really, really hope that statement was being ironic

'course it was, man

[justme819]

My research on this has me leaning toward Clinton...and has led to different conclusions...much concerning the judgement issue hasn`t been brought up...especially about BO...

When BO entered the race, his justification centered around his alledged, “good judgment”, on the Iraq War...however, associations/issues with Tony Rezko, the Rev. Wright, Bitter-Gate, Ayres, Odinga, Sinclair, etc...all call into question BO`s judgment...so, if he got it wrong in ALL these situations, how did he alledgedly get it right on the Iraq war?

Simple...imho, he guessed...i say this for many reasons...1 is that BO wasn`t in the Sen. to vote and had the advantage of not being fed ALL the misleading intel to base a judgment on...all the same intel which mislead most of Congress into voting for giving Bush the authority to go to war...if, and only if, all peaceful solutions failed 1st!

This is backed up further by the fact that after Hillary helped get him elected to the US Sen. where both would vote based on the same intel, BO consulted with her before voting the exact same way on all war issues...except one...this includes voting 84 times for appropriations, etc...

But, perhaps most indicative of how BO really would`ve voted is in his own words...in the debates...

In the Cleve. debate, BO stated that he`d take action...if intel indicated that Al-Qaeda was building a base there...what?...wait a min!...this from a guy who stated he was against the war from the start?!...

When the war started, the US had intel which indicated that Al-Qaeda had bases in Iraq...the very same condition in which Obama states he`d take action there...

Which means Obama was either lying in the debate or when he says he was against the war from the start.

Hillary was right to point out that Obama wasn`t in the Sen. at the start to vote on the war...and he`s going to say what ever makes him look good...so, of course he`s gonna say that he was against the war from the start...makes him look smarter than everyone else...especially to his supporters...

And speeches, etc., aren`t the same...there`s a HUGE difference between giving speeches, etc., and voting with a constituency to answer to, nearly all of who were for the war at the time!

In fact, on and just after 9/11, very nearly every American was for going to war or dropping a bomb on those responsible for what took place.

For that matter, my 12-yr. old also gave a speech against the war...yet, no one`s claiming that he has the judgement/experience, etc., necessary to run the most powerful country on earth...he obviously doesn`t...and neither does BO, imho.

The issue of Clinton`s experience, etc., has also come up...i`ll try to be brief...if possible...

From what I`ve uncovered, Obama`s record/experience is a joke conpared to Hillary`s...and i don`t care what he did as a state Sen...except for the criminals he apparently hung with...to help him get money...to, comparitively, only get a few things done...

Meanwhile, Hillary`s met with leaders all over the world and has visited over 80 countries to help out any way she could...

Just some of All Hillary`s achievements/experiences as a US Senator:

http://hillaryclinton.com/about/senator/

According to FactHub, Hillary has passed 19 bills...Obama has passed 2...to promote democracy in the African Congo...and to name a post office...

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976/page/1

As 1st Lady,

http://hillaryclinton.com/about/firstlady/

spin it any way you want, the FACT remains that Hillary has far more experience in foreign matters than Obama does...in Obama`s latest flurry of arrogant statements, he said that he has superior world experience to both McCain and Clinton...just because he was in Kenya and Indonesia for a total of 6-7 countries he`s ever been to...and much of it, as a kid...

Here`s also a list of Clinton`s achievements/experiences before becoming 1st Lady:

Law professor, (University of Arkansas)
Civil rights attorney, (studying under Marian Edelman Wright and serving as a staff attorney for the Children's Defense Fund)
Board member of multiple non-profits organizations
Board member of multiple corporations
Head of state agencies: (having to implement federal directives & get federal funding) - Arkansas Rural Health Advisory Cttee, Arkansas Educational Standards Cttee, etc.
Head of federal agency, (appointed by Jimmy Carter) - U.S. Legal Services Agency, (and managed a $300 million budget)
Partner of a law firm
Chair of the ABA's Women's Committee
Advisor to the House Judiciary Committee during Nixon's impeachment
Twice named one of the top 100 lawyers in the US, etc., etc., etc...

Clinton works hard in Senate:

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/clinton_senate/2008/03/22/82305.html

http://bucknakedpolitics.typepad.com/buck_naked_politics/2008/03/clinton-positiv.html

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, I found that I agree with our vets/military experts...who know who they want answering that phone at 3:00 AM...Most, endorsing a Dem., are endorsing Clinton...over 4x as many, as BO`s, are endorsing her foreign policies and plans to bring our troops home within 60 days responsibly...and trust her judgment more than BO`s at 3:00 AM...thousands have endorsed her...this includes 37 of the highest ranking experts as of a few wks. ago and counting...here`s just some testimonials why they All endorse Clinton!

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=6500 ...

6 more have endorsed her since then!

Just my thoughts subject to change at any moment...just like that Flip-Flopper, Obama! :) j/k

:ridinghorse:

[james_t]

This is backed up further by the fact that after Hillary helped get him elected to the US Sen.

OK, you're losing me here. I lived in Illinois when Obama campaigned and was elected and I have no memory of Hillary Clinton having the least thing to do with it. Obama's election came about by:

1) Peter Fitzgerald's decision that he would not run for re-election (Fitzgerald's election came about, in part, thanks to the political implosion of Carol Moseley-Braun)

2) Jack Ryan's candidacy ending after sordid details about his sex life with his actress/ex-wife were made public

3) Alan Keyes coming to Illinois to take Ryan's place - a number of Republicans at the time compared it to Clinton's Senate run in New York - and subsequently crashing and burning

[justme819]

OK, you're losing me here. I lived in Illinois when Obama campaigned and was elected and I have no memory of Hillary Clinton having the least thing to do with it. Obama's election came about by:

1) Peter Fitzgerald's decision that he would not run for re-election (Fitzgerald's election came about, in part, thanks to the political implosion of Carol Moseley-Braun)

2) Jack Ryan's candidacy ending after sordid details about his sex life with his actress/ex-wife were made public

3) Alan Keyes coming to Illinois to take Ryan's place - a number of Republicans at the time compared it to Clinton's Senate run in New York - and subsequently crashing and burning

You`re absolutely correct...Clinton helped by campaigning for him when she could...it was supposedly in return for BO`s help getting Bill elected Pres. in 1992 and helping her get elected to the Senate.