Clinton Says Bush Needs Congressional OK for Iran War

posted by John Nichols on 10/04/2007 @ 01:02am

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (116)

Subscribe Now

New York Senator Hillary Clinton, the front-runner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, will never be accused of being an anti-war firebrand when it comes to Iran. Her September 26 vote for a non-binding Senate amendment urging the Bush administration to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist entity only heightened concern about her hawkish views.

But, amid mounting concern that the 76-22 Senate vote in favor of the resolution would be read by the Bush administration as an authorization to ramp up preparations for an attack on Iran, Clinton is pulling back from the brink -- and trying to get the rest of the Senate to do the same.

The senator has signed on as a co-sponsor of legislation requiring formal congressional approval for any attack on Iran.

The legislation, written by hawkish Virginia Senator Jim Webb, would bar the use of appropriated funds for war against Iran without authorization by the House and Senate.

"Any military action against Iran will have an immediate impact on our troops serving in Iraq, our allies in the region as well as long-term U.S. strategic interests," says Clinton. "Senator Webb's legislation insures that Congress will play its constitutional role of providing proper oversight over the administration's policy toward Iran. Congressional oversight and debate can help avoid the mistakes and blunders that have afflicted U.S. policy in Iraq. We cannot allow recent history to repeat itself."

Clinton's stances on issues of war and peace are rarely reassuring. But in demanding that Congress play its proper role -- something she failed to do prior to the attack on Iraq -- the senator has come down on the right side of an essential question.

Comments (116)

shuffle, shuffle,

the paper must shuffle.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 01:20am
er, better late than never...

Why not just go for the gold and do some impeachment paperwork too?

Posted by hsuBfools at 10/04/2007 @ 02:08am
The White House, and its phalanx of media sycophants, has mastered the art of smoke and mirrors and its accompanying shell games.

Whether or not the Iran plans are true, (probably) the bottom line is that it deflects any spotlights on the mess in: Iraq, Afghanistan, Katrina, the budget, and all of the administrations bungling fiascos.

Wag the dog, the tail (tale), and any other appendage at the public so that they can forget the real messes. After all, they'll (the public) buy into anything as they are so easily distracted and manipulated.

Tomorrow we'll hear about ��..

Posted by bohdan yuri at 10/04/2007 @ 02:57am
"Senator Webb's legislation [which is sadly necessary even though redundant, given the U.S. Constitution (remember that? Don't worry, I'd forgotten too)] insures[whoa! let's not be too optimistic] that Congress will play [this is not a game, people] its constitutional role [see, I was right about that Constitution thing] of providing proper oversight [for once in its life] over the administration's policy toward Iran. [I would say "battle plan," but whatever] Congressional oversight and debate can help avoid the mistakes and blunders [like a chipmunk stops a car] that have afflicted [read: "provided the foundation of"] U.S. policy in Iraq. We cannot allow recent history to repeat itself [but we will as soon as Bush trots out his "you are undermining the troops" argument that terrifies us so]."

Posted by BlueSpark at 10/04/2007 @ 08:35am
Figleaf. Israel gets what Israel wants.

After all, unquestioning allegiance to the terrorist state of Israel is the one thing Right-wing NeoCons, the Right-wing DLC who all bow at the altar of AIPAC, American-Jewish Liberals who are progressive on everything except Israel (except for the enlightened "self-hating Jew), Americans who are indoctrinated to perennially view Israel as the ultimate victim and the Holocaust as the sole act of inhumanity (and cowed with charges of anti-semitism should they think to question or learn of Israel's crimes), and the rabid fundamentalist christian Right in anticipation of end times---all agree on.

Israel gets what Israel wants and the WASP oil men support the plan for their own agenda--and if there is a US president who believes God is acting through him on a righteous crusade--that helps too.

Fought by US children, funded by the US taxpayer.

Just wait till those drums start to pound.

Posted by Lil at 10/04/2007 @ 09:06am
Posted by BLUESPARK 10/04/2007 @ 08:35am

nicely done.

BTW is it "blue spark" or "blues park"?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 09:29am
"American-Jewish Liberals who are progressive on everything except Israel..., "

IOW, socialist,as one of the owners of one of the companys I rep claims and defines herself...you just described her to the tee, and she is proud of her socialist roots...even as she hides money over seas and away from the Hillarys of the world...

Posted by john maasch at 10/04/2007 @ 09:46am
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 10/04/2007 @ 02:08am

27 days and counting, HSUB.

Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 09:53am
The talk of war with Iran makes less than no sense.We're already fighting two wars that we aren't winning and now they're talking about a third war with a ruined military and a sorry excuse for a CIC in charge.I'm not sure if Bush thinks he's supposed to get Armageddon going or if he's going for the record for numbers of wars started and lost,but whatever his reasons they aren't good.He's obviously mentally unbalanced and has no idea what he is doing.He is just as fanatical and evil as Osama and Ahmadinejad and probably suffers from the same type of delusions that Osama and Ahmadinejad suffer from.Religious loons are the most dangerous people on the planet.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/04/2007 @ 10:13am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 10/04/2007 @ 10:13am

actually, to some people it makes A LOT OF SENSE.

lots of money to be made, you know.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 10:19am
BTW is it "blue spark" or "blues park"?

In my mind, it's blue spark. I should have put a dot in there or something.

Posted by BlueSpark at 10/04/2007 @ 10:24am
Posted by BLUESPARK 10/04/2007 @ 10:24am

that's what i imagined.

my musician mind liked the idea of a "blues park"

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 10:28am
This piece is a joke. This congress is a bigger joke. President Bush has no plans for starting a war with Iran. Now, if HRC makes it to the WH, she will most definately pull the trigger on Iran.

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 10:30am
"Religious loons are the most dangerous people on the planet".

Posted by I'M NOBODY 10/04/2007 @ 10:13am

Actually, power hungry politicos like HRC are the most dangerous.

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 10:33am
Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 10:30am

another one.

don't you understand these people ARE ON THE SAME TEAM.

check out these happy go lucky folks:

http://rhein-zeitung.de/on/01/01/21/topnews/clinton-bush.jpg

http://www.new-enlightenment.com/clinton_bush.jpg

http://www.welfarestate.com/unite/bush-clinton/hillary-bush.jpg

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/clinton_bush_june28-2005.jpg

http://aftermathnews.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/bush-clinton-dictators. jpg

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/808503.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9 FDB9CF1936808AB6AB7C5FBABC3D92BB23F3A7C09284831B75F48EF45

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 10:35am
"Religious loons are the most dangerous people on the planet".

Posted by I'M NOBODY 10/04/2007 @ 10:13am

Actually, power hungry politicos like HRC are the most dangerous.

Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 10:33am

argument solved.

religiously-inspired, power hungry politicos are the most dangerous people on the planet.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 10:37am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/04/2007 @ 10:37am

Can't we start all over and pick new candidates?

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 10:49am
Can't we start all over and pick new candidates?

Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 10:49am

sorry. that's all preordained.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 10:54am
ACook-Power hungry people are dangerous,but not nearly as dangerous as a religious fanatic.Bush/Cheney are just as power hungry as Hillary is and so are most POTUS candidates.Power hungry people still tend to think logically,but religious loons do not.Most power hungry people would not be so stupid as to attack a country unless they have an army to do it with.A religious loon would attack anyway if they believe that their god told them to and backs their doing that.I'm afraid that religion mixed with right wing ideology is causing most of the problems that we're facing today.If most people were liberals we wouldn't be having most of these problems.It is right wing believers in the god of Abraham who are causing most of the wars and problems right now and we need for all of you to stop your jihad..

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/04/2007 @ 11:11am
FrostyZoom-A power hungry religious loon would be the most dangerous.The problem with just bombing Iran is that there isn't much money to be made.Money is made by putting troops on the ground,but we don't have those which is why attacking would make no sense.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/04/2007 @ 11:15am
Congress bent over for Bush before...now all of a sudden you want to try to dissuade king george from his imperial mandate.....he is a steam roller and you all can't even get him to compromise on anything, what is Congress afraid of?? It had American support which is why it was elected, and now it rolls over on its' back in a submission position for this junkyard dog dictator....LET's HAV A MORATORIUM ON MORE SENSELESS ATTACKS: DO NOT ATTACK ANY MORE COUNTRIES FOR AT LEAST A YEAR!!!!GET PRIVATE SHADY HUMAN-RIGHTS VIOLATING U.S. CONTRACTORS OUT OF EVERY FOREIGN COUNTRY IMMEDIATELY, WE HAVE ENOUGH SHADY GOVT AGENCIES!!!!THE U.S. NEEDS TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS EVERYONE ELSE, DON'T HANG A "DICTATOR" WHO WE SUPPORTED AND THEN LET OUR FORCES BRUTALIZE ALL THE IRAQI PEOPLE!!!!

DO NOT SUPPORT EITHER OF THE BUSH-CHENEY LITE TAG TEAM: RUDY OR HILLARY....of course, both being crooked polticians, their nominations are inevitable....thanks again intelligent American voter....

Posted by jrs112 at 10/04/2007 @ 11:22am
Actually, power hungry politicos like GWB are the most dangerous.

Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 10:33am

WOW. Finally something from you that makes sense.

Posted by Dr Decibels at 10/04/2007 @ 11:30am
Posted by I'M NOBODY 10/04/2007 @ 11:15am

but when the price of oil hits $150, they'll be lots of money to be made.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 12:05pm
Now, if HRC makes it to the WH, she will most definately pull the trigger on Iran.----Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 10:30am

Now, ACOOK....why EXACTLY will Hillary attack Iran?!?!?! What's the up-side for her?

Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 12:11pm
"...why EXACTLY will Hillary attack Iran?!?!?! What's the up-side for her?"

What she said:

"It is right in the heart of the oil region," she said. "It is directly in opposition to our interests, to the interests of regimes, to Israel's interests."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/15/washington/15clinton.html?pagewanted=1 &ei=5088&en=5fb2367e2a644bc2&ex=1331611200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Posted by Lil at 10/04/2007 @ 12:24pm
i say let's attack iran. re-instate the draft, invade. with a shock and awe campaign we miht be able to blitz through iran, and "accidentally" putsch into pakistan where i hear ol' bin laden is holed up!

huh? bin laden? remember? oh yeah...him...

so sure...attack. draft. full war footing...

and hillary helped make it all possible with her wise leadership and war enabling voting record...

hillary clinton (likud), israel...i mean, (democrat), new york...

the sooner it happens the sooner disgruntled nation erupts in protest and the social wars of the modern rome can begin...

because apparantly most politicians stopped even pretending to listen to those who elect them LONG AGO...

attack! blitz! imperium americum!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 1:13pm
because if even the (supposed) leader of opposition (ha ha ha) is drumming for war to protect the national interests of israel...when the electorate of america said unequivically NO...

what is the point?

hillary rodha clinton voted to send us into one big bloody fiasco, did it again...

then decided, "oops...the schmuks are grumbling...better throw them a bone and backtrack enough to deceive them enough to get them watching american idol and remembering nothing about politics but the names of the last few presidents..."

uh...bush...uh..clinton...uh...bush....oh yeah...i see thu parrurn now...CLINTON! i'm smurt! guess before that first bush, musta been a clinton!

bush, clinton, bush, clinton...isnt that in the constpatooshin or sumthin? oooh! ooooh! look! brittany spears!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 1:22pm
i think when ms. clinton gets the nomination (ok, sure, i admit - theres no chance it will be any other way - ITS PREORDAINED) she should choose jeb bush as her running mate...

bush, clinton, bush, clinton, bush!

the clintons need to look at following the old roman tradition of adopting an adult so the next president can be clinton again...chelsea is still young...unless they do like the krupp family and find an older guy to marry her off to who iswilling to change his name to clinton!

hail bush! hail clinton!

"ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce the next bush or clinton of the united states...."

ah, monarchy and sham democracy! the new american way!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 1:59pm
son...if your last name is bush or clinton...you can grow up to be the bush or clinton of the united states of bush and clinton!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 2:01pm
meet the new boss! same as the old boss!

hail bushclinton!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 2:04pm
"If most people were liberals we wouldn't be having most of these problems. It is right wing believers in the god of Abraham who are causing most of the wars and problems right now and we need for all of you to stop your jihad.."

Posted by I'M NOBODY 10/04/2007 @ 11:11am

IM, you know I respect you as a fellow blogger, but I feel your statement is disengenious. Being a "liberal" is no gurantee that there will be less wars on this planet. Fanaticism causes all kinds of social ills, including wars, not the belief in the Lord God himself.

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 2:07pm
so when the bush reams you war fighting and bleeding schmuks to your bloody anal delight...here comes a clinton to rub a little preparation H on the inflamed anal tissue, followed by some lubricant and silly scandal and POW - another bush to buttbang ya all over again...

no wonder rupert murdoch loves the hillary! brilliant!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 2:09pm
"Now, ACOOK....why EXACTLY will Hillary attack Iran?!?!?! What's the up-side for her?"

Posted by MASK 10/04/2007 @ 12:11pm

No down side?!?!?!

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 2:09pm
preparation H for pres!

ah, i love the smell of flametongued rantage in the afternoon!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 2:11pm
Guess who will Veto Hilli's plan. Presidential Directives have already bypassed this forseen plot by Congress. It is only a matter of days. Guns, ammo and food supplies is my Directive.

Posted by meconopsis at 10/04/2007 @ 2:14pm
Posted by MECONOPSIS 10/04/2007 @ 2:14pm |

exactly!

"ok...i'll backtrack a little and vote for this worthless claptrap...and it gets vetoed anyway!"

brilliant! win win!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 2:19pm
ACook-Name a war where liberals fought against liberals at any point in human history.If everyone was a liberal wars would be fought by way of food fights and that's about as violent as it would get..Name a war going on now where no one involved is a believer in the god of Abraham.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/04/2007 @ 2:19pm
WAR WITH IRAN! WAR WITH IRAN!

only 70 million of them crazy towelheads! we can take 'em with no more than a couple of hundred thousand give or take a few tens of thousands!

and israel wont have to fight at all! every muslim, shia, sunni, alevi, and sufi, in the world will hate us so much that they will forget about israel completely!

because my country exists to defend israel, and i'm willing to send my family, my friends, and myself to die for israel's security and the profits of my bushclintonian overlords, bid oil and the only thing saving whats left of our manufacturing base - the military!

gawd! makes me feel patriotic..."gawd bless the U...S...Ayyy!"

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 2:29pm
biG oil...that is...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 2:30pm
WAR WITH IRAN! WAR WITH IRAN!

com'on everybody...join in...

USA USA USA

make sure you hold up an israeli flag like they did in the anti-ahmedinajad rallies in NYC when you say that, by the way...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 2:33pm
Now, if HRC makes it to the WH, she will most definately pull the trigger on Iran.----Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 10:30am

Again, ACOOK....why exactly?

Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 2:46pm
"ACook-Name a war where liberals fought against liberals at any point in human history. If everyone was a liberal, wars would be fought by way of food fights and that's about as violent as it would get. Name a war going on now where no one involved is a believer in the god of Abraham."

Posted by I'M NOBODY 10/04/2007 @ 2:19pm

IM, there is no such thing as a liberal or conservative war.

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 2:46pm
"Again, ACOOK....why exactly?"

Posted by MASK 10/04/2007 @ 2:46pm

Again, why not?!?!?

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 2:48pm
Hillary is a pawn for Israel like plenty of other politicos on the Hill. And as far as war goes, well, the U.S. didn't get to it's current position by playing nice. War is the answer. Why do so many of you spend your time on the USS Ship of Fools?

Posted by chimichenga at 10/04/2007 @ 2:50pm
Gods...I can't wait until I post my "Only One More Year" Bushism calender

Posted by leftofcenter at 10/04/2007 @ 2:54pm
ACook-I was referring to wars where leaders who were liberals fought with other countries that,also,were lead by liberals.To my knowledge that's never happened,but there have been so very many wars where at least one of the countries involved were lead by conservatives or people on right.Historically liberals only fight when attacked whereas conservatives and other right wing types do the attacking.

Posted by i'm nobody at 10/04/2007 @ 2:57pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/04/2007 @ 2:54pm | ignore this person

then the hill countdown can begin! cause its decided - she's our next bushclinton!

hail bushclinton! death to iran! usa! usa! usa! (hold up israeli flag while chanting last part)

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 3:27pm
Posted by CHIMICHENGA 10/04/2007 @ 2:50pm

because this is our country, and if indeed another bushclinton ascends to the throne and leads us into another "take the heat off israel/enrich the petro-military elite war", we want to be there to take part in the upcoming social wars, win or lose...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 3:31pm
Posted by ZERO 10/04/2007 @ 3:29pm |

you so right! she knows it gets vetoed...

win win!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 3:32pm
remember, these are the clintons. vote for one thing, then backstep, and try to cover both ends. don't actually take a stand on anything; scapegoat others when it's clear you're the one to blame.

her husband was a mass murdererer and used the power of his office get blow jobs. heck, he couldn't even seduce the wife of a french diplomat or anything; he went for monica. hilary stands by all this.

bill will stand by her too when she leads us all over the brink.

i'm sick of the clintons. truly, i'm beginning to wonder if they're pretty much like the bushes, you know, "compassionate corporate liberalism" and all that.

Posted by Scrub at 10/04/2007 @ 3:33pm
ah - freedom!

to vote for or against the next bushclinton as you see fit!

aint it great!?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 3:49pm
20 years of bushclinton and more on the way!

mr murdoch is happy!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 3:54pm
Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 2:48pm

Why would Hillary attack Iran....when it would be 1000X worse than Iraq...and Iraq is the worst mistake we've made in 50 years?!?!??!

Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 4:10pm
iran/russia [tinyurl.com]

part of the reason we were so successful in our two wars against saddam was our technological superiority. a gigantic part of that is because for us, the age old "fog of war" no longer existed, while the iraqis fought blind...our satelites allowed us to see everything they did while they had to guess...

but mr. putin has decided to help mr. ahmadinejad to get some eyes in the sky himself...

we still have quite an advantage in tech, but perhaps not so much as before...

so if we launch an attack on iran and "terrorist" revolutionary guards come streaming into iraq...might be time for a draft!

cause even if we can shoot 'em down...i wonder if mr. putin might lend some russky satellite capability to them damned freedom hatin turrurists?

probably not...putin's russia would never do that...putin's russia is so happy the usa is trying to control the world, you know...for freedom...

go ahead, bushclinton...hit the iranians...these stupid lazy kids got too much ejumugoshdarncashun to stay stupid and pliant as median income falls year after year.

their video games and brittany spears fantasies will keep them quiet for only so much longer and a draft will put 'em in uniform and working...teach 'em some discipline and skills.

WAR WITH IRAQ! WAR WITH IRAQ!

GO BUSHCLINTON! USA! USA! USA!

USA UBER ALLES!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 4:17pm
..putin's russia is so happy the usa is trying to control the world, you know...for freedom...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/04/2007 @ 4:17pm

If you can, read the Op-Ed, page A18, in yesterday's WSJ, by Michael Rubin, editor of the Middle East Quarterly: "Russian Roulette on Iran"

Rubin opines that an Iran w/the bomb is "inimical to Russian interest" but is counting on Bush to deny Tehran's getting the bomb while profiting by helping Iran to do exactly that. Russia "profit both financially and strategically" with its selling of arms and nuke goodies to Iran while the US flounders trying to stop Iran or, we attack Iran...as hoped by Russia. Sort of like Iran profited from us taking out Saddam and his WMD capabilities.

Rubin explains in words my own puzzling why Russia (and slightly less so, China) isn't more interested in denying nukes to Iran (or any Arab/Islamic countries) since it (and China) has far more to worry about from Muslim separatists/terrorists. Russia is boxing the US (and France,e tc.) into a corner hoping we would stop Iran....thus, it's playing "Russian Roulette"! But you know, since Russia invented this game, I'm not sure we can OUTPLAY it!

Posted by Happy at 10/04/2007 @ 4:57pm
sorry frank...getting some rantage out of me...

yer right, yer girl is indeed unstoppable.

you can relax and not worry...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 4:58pm
Posted by HAPPY 10/04/2007 @ 4:57pm |

putin aint no dummy for sure.

recently russian hackers tried to shut down the country of lithuania with a bot attack on the internet...

"there's a bear in the forest" lol...

but maybe there is...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 5:01pm
ok - gotta go to class...

HAIL BUSHCLINTON!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 10/04/2007 @ 5:06pm
Again, why not?!?!?

Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 2:48pm

C'mon, ACOOK, you have to come with more than that. After all, look at the certainty in your 10:30 post.

Posted by Hman23 at 10/04/2007 @ 5:09pm
Posted by SCRUB 10/04/2007 @ 3:33pm

I've heard a lot, but Bill Clinton was a mass murderer?

Posted by Hman23 at 10/04/2007 @ 5:10pm
Looks like Hillary is trying to have it both ways. First she takes the "hawkish " stance to appear every bit as tough as the chickenhawks. Then tries to find a way to portray herself as being interested in bringing back the role of Congress. Where was she before ? Why was it only Russ Fiengold in the senate that was consistantly speaking out about holding this administration accountable, for something, anything. I have no doubt shes a bright lady, but she dosen't come off as someone you can trust to alot of americans still. Its unfortunate that our media has already decided who can play and who can't because she is not the best candidate. But ofcourse she has the biggest campaign chest, and in the end its all about the money, not the ideas. Untill we completely overhaul our political system, and how we elect our leaders, we will continue to hear most of our elected representitives speak out of both sides of their mouths.

Posted by don knutsen at 10/04/2007 @ 7:05pm
Posted by HMAN23 10/04/2007 @ 5:09pm Posted by HMAN23 10/04/2007 @ 5:10pm

Willing to bet you don't get either to answer. ACOOK painted herself into a corner claiming Hillary would attack Iran....and then standing by the idea that Hillary only does stuff after checking the polls.

as for SCRUB...either a Far Right or Far Left Clinton hater.

Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 8:13pm
hman, what do you call dropping bombs on people out of the sky completely out of the blue and with no justification, murdering, you know, "masses" of people.

or were you not paying attention to all that?

or i ask in a friendly manner, conveniently forgotten?

Posted by Taboo at 10/04/2007 @ 9:50pm
"Willing to bet you don't get either to answer. ACOOK painted herself into a corner claiming Hillary would attack Iran....and then standing by the idea that Hillary only does stuff after checking the polls."

Posted by MASK 10/04/2007 @ 8:13pm

Mask, I said no such thing about HRC watching any polls. From my perspective and from what I've read, HRC (and the rest of Congress) is already in agreement that Iran is a problem. HRC is blowing smoke. She voted to go to Afghanistan and Iraq, and I won't put it past her if she votes to attack Iran.

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 9:57pm
Hey FrankG

Started a new job -- Asst Professor of Earth & Env Sciences. Been way busy, but sanity (such as it is) is starting to return. Gotta re-post the old Fireside chat on my new ISP sometime soon!

Ibble

I'm an Edwards supporter myself.

Posted by leftofcenter at 10/04/2007 @ 10:16pm
FG

Yeah, guess I did. If you email it to me HERE I'll post it up too!

ALL

Did you all catch the news on torture memos today. Turns out that it was authorized and signed off at the highest levels...then lied about, even after the SCOTUS said it was illegal. Not that this should be a surprise all things considered. However, its nice to see such blatant disregard for the law from the Exec branch being brought out into the light...

Posted by leftofcenter at 10/04/2007 @ 10:29pm
and I won't put it past her if she votes to attack Iran.----Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 9:57pm

ACOOK....why is it you can't give ANY specifics on why Hillary would DO THAT?!!??!?

You say Bush won't attack Iran....why not? Okay, so why will Hillary?

Or do you think she's so ideological about "containing Iran", that she will risk a world-wide recession (maybe Depression) as well as a massive regional war during her Presidency and LIKE BUSH get 29% (or lower) approval ratings right upto her 2012 re-election bid????

Posted by Mask at 10/04/2007 @ 10:34pm
Posted by MASK 10/04/2007 @ 10:34pm

LIKE BUSH get 29% (or lower) approval ratings

Wow, 29% sure is a low approval rating. How's the (Democratic) Congress doing, approval-wise?

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:04pm
"ACOOK....why is it you can't give ANY specifics on why Hillary would DO THAT?!!??!?"

You don't need specifics.

"You say Bush won't attack Iran....why not? Okay, so why will Hillary?"

Because Bush already proved that it could be done.

"Or do you think she's so ideological about "containing Iran", that she will risk a world-wide recession (maybe Depression) as well as a massive regional war during her Presidency and LIKE BUSH get 29% (or lower) approval ratings right upto her 2012 re-election bid????"

She won't have a low approval rating as long as people like Frankgrits are around.

Posted by MASK 10/04/2007 @ 10:34pm

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 11:05pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/04/2007 @ 10:29pm

Did you all catch the news on torture memos today. Turns out that it was authorized and signed off at the highest levels...then lied about, even after the SCOTUS said it was illegal. Not that this should be a surprise all things considered. However, its nice to see such blatant disregard for the law from the Exec branch being brought out into the light...

LoC, all I can say is I've never doubted that there are some Americans whose hearts bleed for terrrorists. Keep up the good work!

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:06pm
Hillary Clinton would never attack Iran. It doesn't poll well at all.

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:08pm
Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/04/2007 @ 10:16pm

Congrats on the new position.

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 11:08pm
because this is our country, and if indeed another bushclinton ascends to the throne and leads us into another "take the heat off israel/enrich the petro-military elite war", we want to be there to take part in the upcoming social wars, win or lose...

Posted by IBBLEBLIBBLE 10/04/2007 @ 3:31pm

long live the quadrilogy.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 11:11pm
"Hillary Clinton would never attack Iran. It doesn't poll well at all."

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:08pm

At least not for now. If she makes it to the WH, her "husband" will almost certainly influence her decision-making. It is my belief that ol slick Willie will use a potential HRC presidencey to correct any bad policies his administration made during his time in the oval office.

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 11:14pm
Posted by ACOOK 10/04/2007 @ 11:14pm

It is my belief that ol slick Willie will use a potential HRC presidencey to correct any bad policies his administration made during his time in the oval office.

What, you mean there's women he missed?

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:15pm
Hillary Clinton would never attack Iran. It doesn't poll well at all.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:08pm

what say you of the quadrilogy?

did you look at the photos?

happy bush with happy clinton.

happy clinton with happy bush.

happy people, they look.

like friends.

like happy co-workers.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 11:16pm
"What, you mean there's women he missed?"

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:15pm

lol

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 11:18pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/04/2007 @ 11:16pm

like happy co-workers.

You've found us out! We'll be dispatching a hit squad in the a.m..

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:18pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:06pm

So its OK by you that the POTUS disobeys the SCOTUS, then he and his sycophants lie to me and thee?

What flavor of Kool-aid are they serving this month?

...and besides...everyone who knows their ass from a hole in the ground knows that torture only casues people to say ANYTHING to make it stop. It most often does NOT elicit truth.

Posted by leftofcenter at 10/04/2007 @ 11:19pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:18pm

i'm not paranoid.

you see their friendship.

and how do their policies really differ?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 11:22pm
"What flavor of Kool-aid are they serving this month?"

Posted by LEFTOFCENTER 10/04/2007 @ 11:19pm

Lemonaide....

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 11:22pm
"as for SCRUB...either a Far Right or Far Left Clinton hater."

where does scrub ever say s/he "hates" the clintons. s/he says s/he's sick of 'em.

as for the rest of it, the facts r the facts. seems to go with being the president of the united states...or most large powers nowadays.

& i wonder, mask, do you think politics is along a line, you know, from "far left" over to "far right"? or do you believe politics is more of a circle, you know, where the ends meet?

and how much of politics is, indeed, nothing but a mask.

Posted by Taboo at 10/04/2007 @ 11:25pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/04/2007 @ 11:22pm

you see their friendship.

and how do their policies really differ?

It does seem rather suspicious that both of these Administrations seem to adopt policies that are remarkably similar. And what a further coincidence that most of these policies seem to reflect mainstream American opinion. Hmmmmm...

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:26pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/04/2007 @ 11:21pm

Frank, why is Welsey Clark giving HRC any support, considering her husband bounced him out on his rearend when he was the Supreme Commander of Nato forces while in the Balkans?

Posted by ACook at 10/04/2007 @ 11:27pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:18pm

i use "quadrilogy" facetiously.

but, really, how will their economic and military policies differ?

how?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 11:27pm
Posted by FRANKGRITS 10/04/2007 @ 11:21pm

FRANK, I must say that I admire the hell out of Hillary Clinton's firm stance on both sides of this issue.

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:28pm
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:26pm

what "mainstream" america wants,

or

what "mainstream" america is being convinced it wants?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 11:29pm
It does seem rather suspicious that both of these Administrations seem to adopt policies that are remarkably similar.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:26pm

if the policies are so similar,

why do you attack one while you defend the other?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 11:32pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/04/2007 @ 11:27pm

but, really, how will their economic and military policies differ?

how?

I believe that Hillary is an elitist, leftist true believer, with an abiding hatred of traditional American moral values, free markets, and capitalism, in accordance with the values of so many of those on this board. Her personal haughtiness and arrogance are legendary. Most of her positions on the war are calculated to win over the middle, nothing more, since the middle of America, for good reason, has not trusted Democrats with national security since Johnson. She sounds tough because that's what her advisors tell her she has to do to overcome the Achilles heel of the Democratic Party, which is always national security. Thus, national security for her consists of whatever the polls tell her, and nothing more. If she gets elected, look for an almost immediate cut and run in Iraq followed by more years of doing absolutely squat to fight terrorism, just like Bill did. All you need do is check out her supporters on this board, they're basically against any measures at all. They get it; they know she's lying.

Economically, Hillary is a statist. She will push for government control of as much as the economy as possible, all 'for the children' of course. And when she takes over health care, the government will have the right and the ability to tell everyone, for their own good, what to eat, drink, and (not) smoke...ala Michael Bloomberg.

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:40pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/04/2007 @ 11:32pm

why do you attack one while you defend the other?

Because I think Hillary is lying through her teeth. Most of her positions are poll-tested and her Administration will be as feckless with regard to protecting this country as Bill's was. She'll be completely ineffective as President except where she can really do damage, which is by pushing for greater state control of everything she can get her hands on. She's incredibly ruthless and calculating and worst of all she's a leftist true believer who really thinks she's on a mission from some kind of leftist god. As a whole, these Clinton people are possibly the sleaziest, most power hungry bunch we've seen in years, and they're very, very, very, good.

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:49pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/04/2007 @ 11:32pm

Hey FROSTY, now I've got a question for you. What do you think of those Canadian politicians who fight for socialized medicine for the masses, and then hop on the first plane to America for medical treatment once THEY get a serious disease. Like that lady politician who prevented a two-tiered system, but when SHE got breast cancer, flitted off to America for treatment....because she could afford it from her rich daddy. No alarm bells for you there?

Posted by pontificus at 10/04/2007 @ 11:58pm
free markets, and capitalism

by pontificus.

nafta mean any thing?

wto?

would ms. clinton set out to change these,

or set out to sign more?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/04/2007 @ 11:59pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/04/2007 @ 11:59pm

wto?

would ms. clinton set out to change these,

or set out to sign more?

I think she would let them languish. Those two items are one of the few things, obviously, that I agreed with Bill Clinton about. But I think it's more accurate to say that it was Bill's advisors who pushed for those things, Bill was too lazy and had other interests. I don't think Hillary believes in those things. She hasn't said a word about them, for example, that I know of.

Posted by pontificus at 10/05/2007 @ 12:05am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:58pm

oh no, that lady would love to see the whole system privatized.

and so would her insurance company buddies.

the alarm bells have been ringing not because the system is bad (it has inefficiencies but, life expectancy in canada is about 80 years and infant mortality is 4.8 in canada compared to 6.3 in the u.s.),

but because the crony buddies of the very powerful insurance industry are enabling the systems demise.

madam hillary has proposed nothing like what we have here.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:06am
She hasn't said a word about them, for example, that I know of.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/05/2007 @ 12:05am

that's because she wants votes.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:06am
Her personal haughtiness and arrogance are legendary.

Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/04/2007 @ 11:40pm

and how is the different from mr. bush?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:07am
Most of her positions on the war are calculated to win over the middle, nothing more,

by pontificus

and how is that different that mr. bush?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:08am
If she gets elected, look for an almost immediate cut and run in Iraq

by pontificus

but didn't bill continue george sr.'s war in iraq?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:09am
They get it; they know she's lying.

by pontificus.

and how is that different that mr. bush?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:10am
And when she takes over health care,

by pontificus

isn't she proposing letting the insurance industry take it over more?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:11am
I do find it ironic that Stronach, after a career of removing free market health care choices from average Canadians, chooses to fly to the US for treatment when the chips are down for herself personally. No doubt she would have died without being able to take advantage of free market health care, but she has worked tirelessly to deny that choice to average Canadians. Average Canadians or English would DIE waiting in line for the cure that Ms. Stronach got by rejecting the system she helped trap them in.

We have those kinds of people here, too; we call them elitist hypocrites.

Stronach went to U.S. for cancer treatment: report

Updated Fri. Sep. 14 2007 7:57 AM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Liberal MP Belinda Stronach, who is battling breast cancer, travelled to California last June for an operation that was recommended as part of her treatment, says a report.

Posted by pontificus at 10/05/2007 @ 12:11am
Because I think Hillary is lying through her teeth

by pontificus

and how is that different than mr. bush?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:12am
She'll be completely ineffective as President except where she can really do damage,

by pontificus

and how is that different than mr bush?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:12am
She's incredibly ruthless and calculating

by pontificus

and how is that different than mr. bush?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:13am
these Clinton people are possibly the sleaziest, most power hungry bunch we've seen in years, and they're very, very, very, good.

by pontificus.

and how is that different than mr. rove?

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:14am
don't you see ponti,

they are both really bad.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:15am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/05/2007 @ 12:11am

not now.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:15am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/05/2007 @ 12:06am

oh no, that lady would love to see the whole system privatized.

and so would her insurance company buddies.

That's not in accord at all with what the Canadian media reports.

but because the crony buddies of the very powerful insurance industry are enabling the systems demise.

Yeah, the leftists here always have boogey men to blame for the failures of socialist systems, too. I see you've got at least a little of that true believer syndrome in you, too. Never the fault of the system, eh, always someone else to blame?

madam hillary has proposed nothing like what we have here.

Oh yes she has...it died a painful death during Bill's first term.

Posted by pontificus at 10/05/2007 @ 12:16am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 10/05/2007 @ 12:15am

don't you see ponti,

they are both really bad.

Uh, no, I don't, actually. Although they both sound and sometimes act similar, they have different agendas. Bush will never push for socialized medicine; Hillary is doing so now. Hillary is drawn to power because she wants to use that power for the 'progressive' statist agenda. Bush uses his power in the way to make the country safe, although he doesn't really have much of an idea how to reform our government/economy interactions. Bush takes national security seriously; I don't believe Clinton ever will. You can draw your false parallels all you want, but I don't buy them.

And with regard to personal haughtiness and arrogance. One story told by staffers in the first Clinton White House was that they were forbidden to make eye contact with Lady Clinton when she walked through the halls. And that's just one example. Do you honestly believe that Laura Bush, or even Bush himself, has that attribute? I don't.

Posted by pontificus at 10/05/2007 @ 12:27am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/05/2007 @ 12:16am

don't you see?

handy clich�:

plus �a change, plus c'est la m�me chose.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:29am
Posted by PONTIFICUS 10/05/2007 @ 12:27am

i bet mr bush at a barbecue is a funny dude.

but when president bush is being president, it somehow seems false.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 12:32am
Pontificus,

"Bush uses his power in the way to make the country safe"

No, he doesn't. He isn't using "his" power to make us safe in Iraq.

"Bush takes national security seriously"

Humor hour. American interests wane, Conservatives crack their damn jokes.

"Do you honestly believe that Laura Bush, or even Bush himself"

You don't.

Posted by conshame at 10/05/2007 @ 01:41am
Posted by CONSHAME 10/05/2007 @ 01:41am

thanks. had to practice.

Posted by frosty zoom at 10/05/2007 @ 02:08am
I balk at the thought of walking a mile in red high heel shoes. As a kid I stumbled around in tall black heavy gumboots 3 sizes too big stuffed with thick wool sox & I ran to stand in it when the cows shit in the yard just to warm up my freezing twinkle toes. But I balk at the thought of walking a mile in those red high heels. My cousin in Fiordland for years carried a backpack spraying noxious weeds for a living. He walked through swift rivers in rubber boots without laces & never wore sox. When he got to the other bank he just stepped out, poured the water out, stepped in & kept spraying. I could never see Selwyn, named after my dad walking through rivers & out the other side in bright red high heels with silver bells hanging on there for the look of it & not having anything whatsoever to say for themselves. Anyone want walk in the crocodile skin boots of the world's biggest terrorist, or in the polished shoes of his busy body guards with earplugs, or the sandals & slippers the 650,000 dead, or the shoes of 4 million plus refugees victims of the fabricated oil war. The whole world saw depleted uranium bombs landing in the desert sands of Iraq on CNN in the first gulf war. The coverage was like a big sports event. I would love to be in George's boots when he meets an avenging angel in the street or sees Jesus floating above on a fluffy cream pie sailing down in heavenly robes to congratulate his hero.

Posted by crowsfly at 10/05/2007 @ 03:46am
Pontificator

don't you find it a wee bit ironic that the problem with the "free market" health care you crow about is that no one can afford it!

And I take it by your lack of response to my prior that you support torture, and disobeying the law, and then lying about it....

ACOOK

Thanks

FG

Oooops...c'est la vie I guess

Posted by leftofcenter at 10/05/2007 @ 07:15am
If President Hillary goes into or attacks Iran, it will fail, since it will be a wrist slapping event as opposed to an ass whuppin and the press will support and praise her for being tough on National security, as will all the little Dems in congress...the same ones that dump on Bush for the same thing today.

Posted by john maasch at 10/05/2007 @ 09:39am