Let have a big 5-year thank you party for the spineless, gutless, leaderless and clueless democrats who voted for the J.H. Res. ll4 which authorized junior/dick/rummy to use any force "necessary" against Iraq. And, a big thank you to Hillary for still supporting and defending her vote! Maybe we should start calling her, "Quagmire Hillary'! cleve
Posted by cleve at October 11, 2007 06:34 AMIt's like talking to cows.
[shakes head]
Posted by snark at October 11, 2007 06:39 AMWhy is it that everything in US politics turns into some meaningless, idiotic catch phrase. If I hear the word "surge" one more time, or the "the sense of the senate", I'm going to throw up my hard-earned beer.
Watching a political debate or any MSM news and you're inundated with these stupid words and phrases. Wolf Blitzer is a prime example, and I won't even talk about Katie Couric. Gahh!! They use every political-hack term you can think of. Someone should teach them to speak English, and maybe convey the news instead of parroting inane pol-speak.
good points.
so there's not a singe Dem with a viable chance at the nomination who isn't bought and paid for by AIPAC. good to know.
maybe there'll be a third party actual antiwar candidate I can vote for. otherwise I'm sitting it out.
Posted by ran at October 11, 2007 06:54 AMSee I gotta come back here more often. I was away for awhile, diddling with other shit.
These posts on Hillary hate ought to be required reading. They are a cool tonic in a desert of vituperative idiocy.
Posted by Mr Blifil at October 11, 2007 08:03 AMsooooooooooo, if progressives voted for a similar bill giving King George the green light to attack Iran then that makes Hillary's vote on Kyle-Lieberman ok?!?!?!?
Posted by Gay Veteran at October 11, 2007 12:22 PMNo. But it makes Obama a hypocrite for criticizing her for it.
I know many are hoping for the knight in shining armor candidate who's practically perfect in every way (like Mary Poppins) but reality's a bitch.
Posted by snark at October 11, 2007 12:32 PMGreat, I'll bite, Obama's a hypocrite for criticizing her for it. Reconfirms my initial opinion that there isn't a single person running for the Democratic nomination that I should lift a finger to help win the primary.
I didn't oppose that vote because I hate Hillary. I opposed it because it was frakking stupid. Anyone who picks a time like right now, with the maniac we have in office, to declare the military of a country that Cheney wants to bomb to be a terrorist organization, is acting like they've been asleep for years.
It'd be helpful to this discussion if the US hadn't been blocking an official international definition of terrorism for years, but it is in general accepted to mean a group that is not a state actor. Further, given that 80% of the attacks on our troops in Iraq are by Sunnis supported by Saudis or from Saudi Arabia, this whole affair smacks of hypocrisy and disproportionality.
I could really give a toss at this point about the presidential nomination race. These people have all ticked me off to the point where only the horror of looking at the Republican field could keep me from saying I won't vote for any of them. And this vote, along with Sen. Obama's ridiculous promotion of divestiture in Iran by suggesting that such an action would yield terrorism and genocide-free portfolios, is just more of the same idiocy I've come to expect from these milquetoast machine candidates.
Posted by natasha at October 13, 2007 06:08 AMNatasha,
I saw your post at Booman Tribune. I don't disagree that ratcheting up the warmongering rhetoric against Iran is counter-productive. My post was intended to focus on the fact that Hillary repeatedly gets attacked for stuff that she is not unique in doing. That's it.
Posted by eriposte at October 13, 2007 07:29 PMThank you for reminding us that Hillary-hate isn't enough. We also need Obama-hate, Dodds-hate, Dean-hate, etc.
Posted by boukolos at October 14, 2007 08:53 PM"Just because Bush might falsely claim that this toothless resolution gives him the legal authority to invade Iran, doesn't mean that progressives should be claiming that it gives him that authority."
This is beside the point, because the danger posed by Kyl-Lieberman has nothing to do with its toothlessness.
The danger is in precisely the memes it projects as causes for war with Iran--the unsubstantiated charges that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, the charges that Iran is militarily liable for American combat deaths in Iraq, the absurd proposition that Iran is some kind of imminent threat to the United States or Israel. Iran's Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, the resolution says. And who can think otherwise?
But haven't we been down this road before?
All senators who voted for this measure are somehow suspect. And the political calculus around this resolution does nothing but harm the country. And let's consider for a moment whether they are guilty not just of bad judgement, but misconduct. How are they not suspect for this vote when the ground of deception is being so clearly prepared?
Bush (who is not President X) will not have to say, "Look, the Senate gave me authority to bomb Iran",...but rather he can point to the resolution and say, "The sense of the Senate is that Iran is guilty of these things. This danger has forced my hand."
Posted by Copeland at November 3, 2007 02:15 PM