Chris Matthews Dresses Down Texas State Democratic Senator (Kirk Watson) regarding his support for Obama (2 Viewers)

Really I think all this discussion about the pre-war position of various Dem. candidates at this point is moot.

Very few in either party spoke out and thought the war was BS from the outset. Knowing what they know now about WMDs, Al-Queda, Hussein's pre-war capability, etc. etc. I doubt many Republicans would have been behind the war.

Really, I don't give a **** what a politician did or voted before the war, I'm interested in what he/she is going to do from here on out regarding Iraq. All this noise about how Obama has been ant-war from the outset doesn't make him, at least regarding the war, any more attractive than Clinton.

From my standpoint, many politicians and Americans were snowed under by the slick pre-war sales-pitch the administration sold. Clinton was duped, Obama wasn't.

It's all irrelevant regarding what to do about Iraq's future, imo.

Both parties, really I think will do more of the same in Iraq. Doesn't matter who gets in I think.
 
That speech then makes it clear she was for the war. The U.S. tried and failed to get the resolution. So how was she misled?
.

Her speech made it clear that she was for disarmament through (another push for) diplomatic efforts in order to avoid war, but if all else failed use force to eliminate the threat Saddam and his weapons posed.

Again, go back and watch the entire 10-10-02 speech or you can read the whole thing here: http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposed conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the UN for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know that the Administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.Over eleven years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and to the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein - this is your last chance - disarm or be disarmed.
 
All this noise about how Obama has been ant-war from the outset doesn't make him, at least regarding the war, any more attractive than Clinton.

In most cases I would agree. However, read Obama's quote before the war. It shows an acute understanding of the situation. He described, nearly exactly, the situation we would find ourselves in. In addition he did it at a time it was not politically wise to do so.

It shows political courage, understanding of reality over rhetoric and good judgment. It shows an ability to see through smoke and mirrors to the heart of the facts and to project beyond today or tomorrow to the endgame. Finally, based on his statement I'd have to conclude a President Obama would not take military action without a firm definition of what the objective was and what "winning is".

It's not just Obama's opposition but the timing and statements that Capt. Substanceless made in opposition that show the distinct difference in the philosophy between the two in how our armed forces should be used.
 
Group hug!

07091908Wednesday25group%20hug.jpg
 

That's an ad, Darling :) and slop.
From your link:
Jeff Gerth, a former investigative reporter for The Times, and Don Van Natta Jr., a current investigative reporter for The Times, are the authors of “Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton,” from which this article is adapted. The book will be published by Little, Brown next week.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200706220010
 
Oooops. Everything posted on the internet is true. Everyone knows that.
 
In most cases I would agree. However, read Obama's quote before the war. It shows an acute understanding of the situation. He described, nearly exactly, the situation we would find ourselves in. In addition he did it at a time it was not politically wise to do so.

It shows political courage, understanding of reality over rhetoric and good judgment. It shows an ability to see through smoke and mirrors to the heart of the facts and to project beyond today or tomorrow to the endgame. Finally, based on his statement I'd have to conclude a President Obama would not take military action without a firm definition of what the objective was and what "winning is".

It's not just Obama's opposition but the timing and statements that Capt. Substanceless made in opposition that show the distinct difference in the philosophy between the two in how our armed forces should be used.

Conversely, it also shows that Hillary Clinton is amenable to changing her mind after circumstances change, which many think is construed as "flip-flopping," but I once wholeheartedly supported the war; it shows a willingness maybe to change a position after certain events and how that issue has transpired on the ground.

Then again, it maybe reflective of the typical Clintonesque moistening the finger and seeing which way the political winds blow, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if one is willing to carry out the will of the people.
 
Conversely, it also shows that Hillary Clinton is amenable to changing her mind after circumstances change, which many think is construed as "flip-flopping," but I once wholeheartedly supported the war; it shows a willingness maybe to change a position after certain events and how that issue has transpired on the ground.

Then again, it maybe reflective of the typical Clintonesque moistening the finger and seeing which way the political winds blow, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, if one is willing to carry out the will of the people.

Once again I find it odd that some aren't willing to make a distinction between a candidate who made the right call and a candidate who made the wrong call.
 
Fox News to the rescue!!

Earmarks account for less than 1% of the budget. While they do tend to be pork spending and I tend to be against them but it is such a small issue that is being highlighted while the people highlighting them spend the big money.

I'm all ears.

In my opinion, earmarks show an attitude toward spending--Does the Congressman consider the government coffers a trough for slothful consumption or that it be guarded and rationed with the greatest of care? I say now, more than ever, good stewardship of tax revenue is more important than ever.

See the following op ed piece from Jeff Flake (the number one Congressional foe of earmarkers):

Members of Congress often say that outside critics spend too much time complaining about earmarks. After all, these congressionally directed appropriations represent only a fraction of the federal budget.

Take it from somebody on the inside. If you think that critics spend an inordinate amount of time and resources talking about earmarks, you should see the time and effort members of Congress spend securing earmarks.

There seems to be an unspoken truce between Congress and the administration: You don't complain about our earmarks, and we won't cut your budget. If you ignore our earmark for a teapot museum in North Carolina, we'll keep quiet about the Department of Homeland Security's grant for bingo halls in Kentucky.

Article I of the Constitution gives Congress power over the entire federal budget. Yet we've squandered this birthright for a meager bowl of porridge — the ability to earmark just a fraction of that budget.

http://thinkrightaz.blogspot.com/2008/02/jeff-flakes-usa-today-op-ed.html



I haven't forgotten your question about McCain-onomics....I just needs more time to put together a response.
 
In my opinion, earmarks show an attitude toward spending--Does the Congressman consider the government coffers a trough for slothful consumption or that it be guarded and rationed with the greatest of care? I say now, more than ever, good stewardship of tax revenue is more important than ever.

See the following op ed piece from Jeff Flake (the number one Congressional foe of earmarkers):


http://thinkrightaz.blogspot.com/2008/02/jeff-flakes-usa-today-op-ed.html



I haven't forgotten your question about McCain-onomics....I just needs more time to put together a response.


I kind of agree with you on earmarks. A part of me wishes they just didn't exist but then again don't we elect our state politicians to fight for what is best for our state? Most earmarks are not all bad. The bridge to nowhere gets most of the attention because it is a public outrage but in the process of protesting all earmarks we overlook a lot of the other "good" earmarks. My point is, earmarks are an extremely small percentage of the total budget, and the real pork earmarks are just a small percentage of the total earmarks. The media, politicians and people have been up in arms about earmarks but look at the reality of the situation.

Congress' year-end budget passed in December 2007 contains almost 9,000 earmarks. 2,658 of them representing $13.2 billion have been identified as "Pork Projects" by Citizens Against Government Waste.

We are talking about .38% of the federal budget. To put that in perspective, if we took every wasted dollar earmarked and put it towards the national debt it would take 681 years to pay off the debt without including interest payments, future deficits, medicaid and social security deficits. Last year alone we paid $243.7 Billion in interest on the national debt alone, almost 20 times more money than we spent in wasteful earmarks. If we took each dollar from wasteful earmarks and put it towards the national debt including shortfalls in social security and medicaid then we would be all settled up in the year 6434 (that is not a typo) and that is if we didn't have to pay the interest which is already 20 times more yearly.

If we could vote to make all earmarks illegal then I would do it but at the end of the day it wouldn't amount to a whole lot.


As for the McCain part of the equation, I look forward to your answer.
 
Once again I find it odd that some aren't willing to make a distinction between a candidate who made the right call and a candidate who made the wrong call.

And I find it odd somehow that supporting the war initially was somehow the wrong thing to do, worse still is to change one's mind. Maybe Clinton was attempting to be bipartisan and was convinced that going in was the right thing to do.

I actually have somewhat of a soft-spot [ack] *disclaimer* I will NOT vote for Hillary Clinton. NOT. But in this regard, I have some sympathy for her because I too was fooled on this issue.

See, yes we can make a distinction here but does it make either candidate a more "attractive" choice by this vote. Obama scores points for arguably being "right all along," and Clinton scores points for being bipartisan, yet changing her mind as circumstances change. So while one candidate has been fairly consistent on the issue, the other changed.

Really this kind of quibbling really isn't necessary, and it's borderline ridiculous. But I guess it's what's left to distinguish the difference between the candidates. :shrug:

Again the disclaimer: I will no way in hell vote for Hillary Clinton for president. No way in hell.
 
Last edited:
And I find it odd somehow that supporting the war initially was somehow the wrong thing to do, worse still is to change one's mind. Maybe Clinton was attempting to be bipartisan and was convinced that going in was the right thing to do.

See, yes we can make a distinction here but does it make either candidate a more "attractive" choice by this vote. Obama scores points for arguably being "right all along," and Clinton scores points for being bipartisan, yet changing her mind as circumstances change. So while one candidate has been fairly consistent on the issue, the other changed.

Really this kind of quibbling really isn't necessary, and it's borderline ridiculous. But I guess it's what's left to distinguish the difference between the candidates. :shrug:

The circumstances changed, but the truth of the situation never did. Even if Saddam had WMDs, it was a dumb call to go to war. There was no evidence that Saddam would have sold his WMDs to terrorists, nor would he have sent planes loaded with chemical weapons to attack the US. Of course, I'm probably in the minority for saying that, but I don't think it changes anything if he did have WMDs. All of the problems that exist in Iraq would still exist.

Of course Saddam didn't have WMDs, and the decision to go to war, and therefore the decision to support going to war looks all the more ridiculous. I don't think it shows that Sen. Clinton was being bipartisan by supporting the war and then being against it. If anything, she was being hyper-political and she followed most of those within her own party. Let's not pretend for a second that she went out on a limb with her vote to authorize force, which you seem to be implying. Support for the war was nearly unanimous, which, for me at least, makes Obamas position all the more admirable and impressive.

Finally, just using your own argument, you seem to be saying that being right is the equivalent of being bipartisanly wrong. I don't know about you, but for me being right and going out on a limb is much more impressive than being wrong but going with the concensus. Maybe I'm just borderline ridiculous though...
 
Finally, just using your own argument, you seem to be saying that being right is the equivalent of being bipartisanly wrong. I don't know about you, but for me being right and going out on a limb is much more impressive than being wrong but going with the concensus. Maybe I'm just borderline ridiculous though...

Yes, I think you are being borderline ridiculous. President Bush gets accused all the time of not changing his mind and not being bipartisan, etc. You seem to not be affording the same judgement when examing Hillary Clinton.

I also think it's awful judgemental and arrogant to be claiming that everybody who was against the war from the outset "knew all along" that Hussein didn't have WMDs, and that what we knew now was common knowledge and the "truth." We didn't know squat because W and Com. intentionally misled us.

It's up to the voters to ascertain whether or not Clinton was A. swayed by some pretty good arguments for going into Iraq in the first place, combined with B. Wanting to be bipartisan in the war "against terror", which was how Iraq was sold.

How can people trash her in light of her change in heart and perspective on this issue? Is it all of a sudden against the rules to change one's mind on a political issue? Really, in this respects some Democrats are acting like a bunch of spoiled, rotten, hypocritical children here because they accuse W of doing the same thing.

Of course, I hate them all, so I'm biased. :shrug:
 
Last edited:
>>>Yes, I think you are being borderline ridiculous. President Bush gets accused all the time of not changing his mind and not being bipartisan, etc. You seem to not be affording the same judgement when examing Hillary Clinton.


I don't think it's a bad thing to change your mind. I never said that once. I just think it's better to have been right all along than to have been wrong and come around later. That's a pretty big difference to me.

>>>I also think it's awful judgemental and arrogant to be claiming that everybody who was against the war from the outset "knew all along" that Hussein didn't have WMDs, and that what we knew now was common knowledge and the "truth." We didn't know squat because W and Com. intentionally misled us.


I never said that everyone knew that Hussein didn't have WMDs. In fact, I said that even if he did have WMDs (something which I certainly didn't know) that the war was a mistake for several reasons which I have mentioned in an earlier post on this thread.

>>>It's up to the voters to ascertain whether or not Clinton was A. swayed by some pretty good arguments for going into Iraq in the first place, combined with B. Wanting to be bipartisan in the war "against terror", which was how Iraq was sold.


I agree, except for the fact that I think it reflects much better on a candidate to have been right all along than to have been wrong.


>>>How can people trash her in light of her change in heart and perspective on this issue? Is it all of a sudden against the rules to change one's mind on a political issue? Really, in this respects Democrats are acting like a bunch of spoiled, rotten, hypocritical children here because they accuse W of doing the same thing.


Once again, it's not against the rules to change your mind. It's just better to have been right. I don't see how anyone can dispute that.

If I had to create a scale it would be:

Right all along
.
.
.
Wrong, but came around
.
.
.
Wrong, but won't admit it


There is no hypocrisy or arrogance at all.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom