That's a noisey death rattle you got going there. BTW, isn't it time Democrats stop attacking the man who will most likely be our candidate in November?

Unlike HRC, polls show Obama can beat McCain, help us get over the 60 vote Senate hump, and make big gains in the House.

Vote Obama. Beat McCain.

amen balthus

Hillary Rodham Clinton voted for the Iraq War Resolution, she knew what the outcome would be, her 35 years of experience told her what it would be. And thats the truth, she showed either bad judgemnet or a wrong political choice either way she forfited her right to be President with that vote. Four thousand dead soldiers and the Taliban, and Osama been forgotten are the reasons.

Balthus:

I imagine Eriposte, Taylor Marsh, the folks at TalkLeft, and Jerome Armstrong will all have considerable blocks of free time available to them once Clinton withdraws. So, this nomination being wrapped up will be good news for them as well.

So RMF, you're saying that Hillary should be held accountable because she had foresight about the war?
What if I can prove to you that Obama proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he thought his 2002 speech was WRONG? Would that mean he could not be the nominee?
Well, as Eriposte has mentioned many times, Obama took down his 2002 speech from his website in 2003---because of the success of the war!!
Only much later, when it was politically safe to do so, did he become a vocal war opponent again.

Please, judging people by fantasy standards, such as expecting them to know exactly how things would play out, is tiresome and useless.

MarkL, RMF likes to remind us all of Hillary's murder of Vince Foster. Prolly doesn't matter how much proof you supply, Hillary's the devil and nothing's gonna change that fact in some people's minds.

"on top of that Obama himself never read the NIE...before Oct 2002"

Um, how could he? He wasn't a member of Congress. He COULDN'T read it, right?

And you're actually arguing that Obama's (excellent) judgement on Iraq despite not being able to read the NIE equates with Hillary's (terrible) Bush-enabling judgment when she had a right to actually personally read it, but apparently didn't? At least she was "briefed" on it---yet still couldn't make the right call.

And you've "had enough of this nonsense"?

This intellectual dishonesty is reaching new "heights". These "arguments" are illogical and absurd. Simply ridiculous.

Geek Esq.,

Finally something we can agree upon! I am absolutely looking forward to time off from blogging given how time consuming it has been. If the race gets resolved one way or the other tomorrow, that would be great. If it doesn't, so be it.

Balthus,

If Obama is going to be the nominee why hasn't he stopped attacking Clinton? Perhaps you should direct your pearls of wisdom towards your nominee?

In regards to Mark L, saying the following things.

So RMF, you're saying that Hillary should be held accountable because she had foresight about the war?...

No, we're saying she doesn't deserve to be president for making the wrong call.

...What if I can prove to you that Obama proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he thought his 2002 speech was WRONG? Would that mean he could not be the nominee?
Well, as Eriposte has mentioned many times, Obama took down his 2002 speech from his website in 2003---because of the success of the war!!
Only much later, when it was politically safe to do so, did he become a vocal war opponent again.

And your point is what, exactly? That for a while in 2003 it looked like the neo-con call was the right one? It did look that way for a brief time. Only that was 5 years ago. Let's deal with the facts today. It doesn't matter if Obama thought he was wrong briefly in 2003. What matters is that he made the initial correct response, correct as judged by the disaster that is Iraq. And that judgment today looks very, very good. I want that kind of decision making in the White House, Obama's decisions.

People are judged all the time by the crucial decisions they make. History is littered with examples of people judged on a single decision they made. Unfortunately for Hillary, she will be judged badly for making the wrong decision, while Obama has been judged vey well for making the correct decision.

Eriposte, are you going to stop pissing all over Obama once Hillary loses Texas and does badly in Ohio?

Euzoius,

Obama's claim is that it is bad judgment to make decisions without reading the NIE. He didn't read the NIE. I think second graders will understand the logic that you find "intellectually dishonest" and "illogical" and "absurd" and "simply ridiculous". Let me leave it at that.

Is it my problem he wasn't in Congress? No. He didn't say - "you should read the NIE if you are in Congress but it perfectly OK to make judgements without reading the NIE if you are not in Congress". Not to mention, he actually said on more than one occasion that if he had actually been in Congress he wasn't sure how he would have voted. So, I think it is clear who is "illogical", "absurd", "ridiculous" and "intellectually dishonest" in this debate, isn't it?

Mark
The war was never a success, Mission Accomplished and President Codpeice declaring victory, was a joke.
Please stop negating all the No Votes on the Senate floor by Democrtic Senators who knew better. They knew the History of the Country, the tribal Sunni and Shite blood wars and the costs in American blood and treasury this war would cause. They voted no, Hillary 35 years of experience voted Yes. (she missed her history lesson 101?)
Moreover, the Anti War movement was strong here in this country especially among Progressive Democrats. World wide Peace movements in the Millions were taking place. Bloggers here were declaring the Sham of removing the Inspectors. As Patrick Moynahan the distingushed NY State senator once said you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts".
Hillary voted yes to the war,I watched her with tears in my heart. Russ Feingold , Robert Byrd and others got up to defend the Constitution and to plead for the inspectors to go forward. Carl Levin offered an amentdment for just that purpose, Hillary voted NO to the Levin Amendment. Even today she gives excuses about her vote, never mentions those excuses were covered under the Levin Amendment.
I want a President who would not vote for War First against a country that did not attack the US, nor had any power to do so. The country was bankrupt and the people were starving. Saddam was a maniac we could have taken down without costing this country Billions maybe trillions of dollars. Sending our troops in without proper armament like the house was on fire, was a folley in judgement Hillary Clinton gladly joined into.
Without slimming Barack Obama who never sent anyone to their death by supporting an umwarranted and unjust war.. go for a defense. Taking a speech down from a website never sent death to anyone Pleeze!

Obama was referring to Sen. Bob Graham (D-FL) who was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 and voted against the Iraq war, not Jello Jay.

But we wouldn't want pesky things like facts to get in the way of our dislike of Sen. Obama, would we? The fact is, Sen. Clinton did not read the NIE prior to her vote for the war. "No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material." --Dana Priest.

Eriposte

Its the height of disingenuousnesses to even suggest that the partial Obama comments, taken with such liberty by the Clinton backers, were anything more than cover for the 2004 nominees who both voted for the AUMF in 2002. Obama's follow-up response to what he would do different THEN did elicit the response of agreement with Bush's policy of security and reconciliation at that time, but Barack DID add the caveat that he'd prefer to be in charge of said effort in place of Bush and his faulty judgment and execution even at that date.

Its simply shameless for Clintonistas to keep taking obvious political statements out of their proper context and trying to use them to impugn the integrity of someone who wouldn't even be a blip on the national radar screen if he hadn't been so presciently correct about the pitfalls and folly of Iraq before the doomed policy was intiated. Let's be blunt: If Barack Obama had been WRONG about his misgivings over Iraq he would have been slaughtered in the 2004 election and he never would have been given a keynote speech at the convention.

Obama has the unique position of placing Iraq as a millstone around McCain's neck should he choose to. It isn't just the starting of the war, it was the entire Republican Party's vacuous lapdog acquiescence allowing the corruption and waste of taxpayer dollars to continue with nary a Congressional oversight committee holding hearings on such blatant waste and mismanagement starting from Day One. Why shouldn't McCain and the Republicans who controlled Congress be held responsible for the enabling of Bush and the neo-cons as they abused the trust of the American people and the soldiers they've used and often neglected even though they truly were the ones making sacrifices since the beginning?

There is no argument that the Republicans can make to erase the reality of their fatal judgments and "experiences" stemming from Iraq and its aftermath. Obama can mop the floor with the facts that support the complicity of nearly every Republican in the debacle now known as our occupation of Iraq.

Obama is refering to Bob Graham. Not Rockefeller.

Bob Graham was chairman at the time and he did read the NIE and he did cite it as one of his justifications for voting against the war.

He did leave the impression the reference was referring to Rockefeller. But at the time in question Bob Graham was Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. So he is factually correct though on the surface somewhat confusing.

Quote from Time.

Now, I have to say when it came to making the most important foreign policy decision of our generation – the decision to invade Iraq – Senator Clinton got it wrong. She didn’t read the National Intelligence Estimate, Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn’t read it. I don’t know what all that experience got her because in my experience if you have a National Intelligence Estimate and the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says, 'You should read this, this is why I’m voting against the war,' then you should probably read it. I don’t know how much experience you need for that.

She didn’t first give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won’t even admit that her vote was a mistake or even that it was a vote for war. And so besides that decision to invade Iraq, we’re still waiting to hear Senator Clinton tell us what precise foreign policy experience that she is claiming that makes her prepared to answer that phone call at three in the morning.

Bob Graham was chairman at the time and he did read the NIE and he did cite it as one of his justifications for voting against the war.

Eriposte, your comment at 8:01 shows you have gone off the deep end, sad to say.

A rational understanding of Obama's "claim" is that if you have a right to read a crucial intelligence document that would inform your decision, it's irresponsible not to do so. Duh.

You logic chopping should be embarrassing to you. And yes, a second grader could figure out where the logic falls in this "debate".

Ooops, apparently I need seperate blockquotes for each paragraph here... I guess I should proofread and preview more. :(

The Obama quote is 2 paragraphs:

Now, I have to say when it came to making the most important foreign policy decision of our generation – the decision to invade Iraq – Senator Clinton got it wrong. She didn’t read the National Intelligence Estimate, Jay Rockefeller read it, but she didn’t read it. I don’t know what all that experience got her because in my experience if you have a National Intelligence Estimate and the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee says, 'You should read this, this is why I’m voting against the war,' then you should probably read it. I don’t know how much experience you need for that.

She didn’t first give diplomacy a chance. And to this day, she won’t even admit that her vote was a mistake or even that it was a vote for war. And so besides that decision to invade Iraq, we’re still waiting to hear Senator Clinton tell us what precise foreign policy experience that she is claiming that makes her prepared to answer that phone call at three in the morning.

Tonyroma,

It is fascinating that every comment in Obama's political career and every vote of his is subject to the Famous Rule of the 2008 Election - W.O.R.M. (What Obama Really Meant) or some aspect thereof. In contrast, no such nuance or qualification is allowed when it comes to the statements or votes of Sen. Clinton during her political career. If Obama voted on Bills to continue the war in Iraq, it was because he didn't intend to continue the war, he was just, um, trying to do the right thing by our soldiers and such and was really "anti-war". If Clinton says she voted for AUMF not because she intended to support pre-emptive war but to force an inspections regime on Saddam, of course her intentions don't matter - only the ultimate vote counts. The Clinton Double Standard is clear.

And, um, no, unless you missed one of my earlier posts last week, Obama is not in any unique position whatsoever with McCain. He voted just like McCain on numerous Bills to continue the war without any checks on Bush. What's worse, all that McCain has to do to sink Obama's great foreign policy judgment is to say that Obama's idea of foreign policy is "a speech and a noun and a verb".

Look, support Obama all you want but I wasn't born yesterday and I have a fairly good idea of how Obama's "judgment" will get decimated by the GOP once he's the nominee. If you seriously think that the GOP is that dumb, then there's a $5000 Porsche that is waiting to be sold.

Sorry Eri, I don't want you to get your time off. Keep up the good fight, our country is worth it. For what it's worth.

Eriposte:

I will give you another 30 hours until the numbers in Texas come in but then it is time to come back to reality. The Obama supporters on this blog are generally thoughtful logical and have well reasoned arguments. Your ability to glean points against Obama are generally shades of the truth and quite nitpicky. You use context only when it suits you and that is rarely.

Most of us like Clinton but strongly feel she would not do well in the general against Mccain and the war is only one of about a dozen good reasons for this.

Bottom line: We think Obama is a brilliant pol., a very very smart individual and a person that will lead the democratic party to a historic victory in November. After Texas, I hope you pull that stick out of your *** and join us.

Eric in Austin

An honest look at the delegate count shows Hillary cannot win the nomination. So, a question for Hillary supporters: Are Hillary's vain efforts more important than the interests of the Democratic party?

eriposte, exactly what did Clinton "really mean" when she voted for the AUMF? Your arguments may please peter the GOP shill, and I find them to reflect a warped reading of Obama's record, but they really do not have any merit if you are advocating a vote for Hillary Clinton. You need to show why your candidate is better, and there is no way in hell you are going to be able to do that with Iraq.

Eriposte...

How easily you slip into the same distortions that many Clinton backers do while thinking that you're making some relevatory comment no one has ever thought of before. Conflating BEGINNING the war with its continued funding are not the same things and they never have been. I want you to show me the Democratic candidate who openly opposed the support of the troops stationed in Iraq by voting against it from 2002. How well did that point of view do in the primaries, hell, how well did it work last year when the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress? Just another red herring by those unwilling to admit being duped by the fools called neo-cons and their head cheerleader George the Incurious.

While I openly admit disgust and disappointment with Democrats since 2002, I do not think trashing the brilliance of building a ground-up coalition that has the ability of altering the Congressional makeup and neutering Republicans perhaps for a generation should be so blindly put in opposition to the dynastic aspirations of an American faux-royal familiy. There are millions of reasons to oppose Senator Clinton starting with the mismanagement of her own campaign to the point of desperation in attacking a fellow progressive by highlighting what the rightwing Canadian government may be orchestrating to help US Republicans.

I stand amazed that so many want to dismiss what Obama has already accomplished with the name he puts forth and the picture of his life as its template. There is new energy in politics because Senator Obama is trying to change the dynamics that have us languishing due to the Washington climate of fear and loathing. I don't worry about the GOP because they will continue to fuel their own demise because they can't help but show the bigotry and arrogance they always do. The difference this year is that Obama already knows the Republicans are bereft of new ideas and can only regurgitate the stale leftovers that already bombed before. If you fear their bankrupt utterances it only shows in what small regard you hold an informed, tired of being lied to and treated like petulant children populace hungering for dramatic change in Washington DC.

Very good! Complaining on one hand that a person can not make a sound judgment w/o reading the NIE and on the other making the same argument that he made a sound judgment w/o reading the NIE. WHAT?

A lucky guess is right. Very good.

This Obama guy! When will the kool aid wear off. UGH!

CA Pol Junkie,
It is the Obama supporters who play the game "What Hillary meant" about the AUMF, refusing to take her at her word.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_el_pr/clinton
"This is a wartime election, which Democrats haven't talked enough about in my opinion," said Clinton.

Hillary must be W's mistress when it comes to Iraq, as it appears she's out to scare up some votes.

RM Forsyth, It is Obama who said the war was a success in 2003---well, he said the "formal phase of the war" was over, to be precise, which is an acknowledgment of success.

Iamacoyote
Never would I or do I ever refer to tabloid nonsesnse like the Vince Foster myths.
Children and registered idiots are allowed to tell lies. Grown men are not. Grow up and argue some hard facts. War is not for tabloid nonsense or Karl Rove distortions. Hillary had plenty of facts as noted in my above posts. Address some of those issues while defending her and President Codpoece for going to war and creating a tragedy of massive proportions. Artfull dodger is a character in Oliver

mostest...

The question isn't soley about the NIE, its about NOT READING the NIE and then still being unable to see Iraq for what it was: The largest US foreign policy blunder EVER, which has cost this nation in blood, treasure and in the ability to defend itself from other threats around the globe.

If someone articulated the precise result of such an egregious action beforehand, they shouldn't be considered "lucky". They should be considered wise beyond their years for being accurate where history often tells us they shouldn't be due to lack of relevant experience in being able to devine the difference in the first place. Criticizing Obama for being right is akin to cursing the weatherman when he predicts a snowstorm that others flat missed because they analyzed the data incorrectly.

"Formal phase of the war" was entirely correct. He knew exactly what was next, and so history bares his remark to be true. The Civil war between the Shites and the Sunnis" was about to begin. Two points to that remark, incredible as it may seem Bush admitted he did not know there was a diference between Shites and Sunnis, and more incredibly the 35 years of experience, former first lady surely must have. She went to war with the army we had, sadly many came home without limbs, sent without proper armament.
She cites her membership on the armed service commitee as "experience" did she read the reports on the armys readiness for war???? Soldiers continued to be blown up for years and Hillary never spoke out on this issue or pushed and exposed the armys lack of proper armament. Those disabled solldiers won't be voting for Hill tomorrow in Texas and Ohio. Her Iraq vot for war counts no matter how you try to avoid the facts. Please any Hillary supporter post why she voted against the Levin amendment?

Never would I or do I ever refer to tabloid nonsesnse like the Vince Foster myths.

Never, forsyth??

Monicagate, Watergate, Vince foster, Impeachment,, Bills post presidential activities???????? rm forsyth 2008-01-30 16:23:49

my disgust with the Clinton campaign for their attacks on Obama leads me to wonder when someone will pull out the blue dress and Monica. rm forsyth 2008-01-25 11:26:15

Doesn't any one wonder why the Rebublicans are being so silent about Monicagate/am I the only one? rm forsyth 2008-01-25 11:26:15

Psst what g oing to happen not who but when Monica comes back to haunt us?????? rm forsyth 2008-01-24 12:02:09

Monicagate no comment yet?? rm forsyth 2008-01-25 20:24:54

Gee, forsyth, you seem to have an inordinate interest in Monica's blue dress, dontcha? I could dig up a few more if you're not convinced...

This entire argument is so incredibly sad.

Forget reading or access to the NIE...

How about access to a friggin' history book, law journal, International Treaty or the Constitution?!

How often have I read on this very site that the war in Iraq is illegal and wrong. It is a war of aggression and it violates International Law. It wasn't a "pre-emptive" war - it was a "war of prevention". We went to war to prevent a potential future attack against us.

Also, Congress completely abdicated their war making powers by giving the whole fucking thing over to the crazy man in the whitehouse.

The war was wrong. The war is illegal. Millions and millions of citizens (without access to the entire NIE) knew it was wrong and illegal and protested against it. Great Brittian knew that it was illegal and stated themselves that they needed UN approval.

To come to TLC - home of the reality based community - and read all of this crap about justifications for voting for the AUMF - after reading for years here that the war should not have been authorized, is bizarre and sad.

Is it really so difficult to support someone on their own merits without having to tear to pieces their opponent?

It would be a lot easier to read support for Clinton if it was written in positive, pro-Clinton, terms rather than anti-Obama shrillnes that will inevitably be used by the GOPers come GE time.

Hillary is not a victim of the media, nor is she a victim of some "zombie-fied" following of Obama - I think that the millions of Obama supporters deserve a little more respect than that.

Hillary is a victim of her own negative campaigning and campaign mismanagement. At every turn she does something dirty and desperate and it is very unattractive.

She is also a victim of timing - simple as that - it just is not her time. This may be unfair, that it is not her time, but it is what it is. And to watch so many take down our probable nominee - including Hillary - is really screwed up.

The vitriol here, against Obama, continues to become more and more cruel as time goes on.

I wish that this tearing down on TLC was done against McCain and the GOP instead of the Dems - either candidate.

How are you going to come back and support Obama if he is our nominee? I believe that it is way past time to take a serious look at that potential.

It is the Obama supporters who play the game "What Hillary meant" about the AUMF, refusing to take her at her word. - MarkL

So you tell me: did Clinton want to threaten war without actually going to war and think voting for the AUMF was a good way of doing that, or did she want to go to war? I certainly can't find any interpretation which reflects well on her, and yet she apparently still thinks she made the right vote in spite of the consequences.

eriposte: "Look, support Obama all you want but I wasn't born yesterday and I have a fairly good idea of how Obama's "judgment" will get decimated by the GOP once he's the nominee."

oh really? Obama has slapped down McCain every time McBush tried to play the Iraq card, Obama has been VERY effective at this because the facts are on his side.

And you didn't have to read the NIE to know there was NO basis for war. Governments ALWAYS manipulate "intelligence" to get support for their position.

And finally the war against Iraq is a war crime, a war of aggression. Too bad Hillary couldn't figure that out either.

As a former Edwards supporter I'll vote for the Democratic nominee. But Hillary has shown appalling judgement.

sorry, that last post was by me

Why is this site so Anti-Obama...I don’t care if Hillary or Obama win just as long as its a democrat...We are all Liberals...Its like Im on a republican blog... Eriposte are you on the Clinton payroll? I just don’t understand why you are so hateful to Obama...U need to STOP! U ARE MAKING ME NOT WANT TO COME TO THIS SITE ANYMORE!

Oh GV, according to Eriposte's new logic (tm), NONE of us who opposed the war and thought it would not turn out well have good judgement because we didn't (and couldn't) read the classified NIE. It was all just "good luck" and "good guessing".

The triumph of the reality based community.

Anjha, they aren't going to come back and support Obama. Hillary is no longer viable and we're now engaged in destroying the remaining candidate to spite him for being an attractive choice and destroying the Clinton's Dream. While the Repubs die laughing.

Coyote

Vince Foster?? that was the accusation. Impeachment and Monica was part of my discussion of what the REPUBLICANS would use against the Democratic Nominee. noT MY ACCUSATIONS MY FEARS.
Facts are necessary in discussions and debates of serious issues. Facts like Hillary voting against the Levin amendment and for the Iraq war resolution. You got anything on that???????? Anything? If Hillary gets the nomination it will be the Hawks winning again and war will be raging until someone pushes the button. Hawks win with Hill.
The anti war peace movement will lose again like in 04 if Hillary Clinton wins tomorrow.

Never would I or do I ever refer to tabloid nonsesnse like the Vince Foster myths.

Did you write this or not? Were those your quotes or not? I could post more of your obsessive prattling about Monica and her blue dress if you're still not convinced. For a while, there, you couldn't talk about anything else.

one comment on the AUMF. Many, many Democratic Congressmen voted against it. Millions around the world protested it. The UN was on the ground, finding nothing. People on this blog were screaming at the top of their lungs not to do it. Hillary Clinton, and other Dems voted to authorize Bush despite the fact any sane person could see he was hell bent on invading, reason be damned. Forget the NIE, I didn't read it either but I knew invading Iraq was going to be a disaster.

Please do not address your posts in anyway to me. You refuse to answer any questions of substance and prattle about out of context things I wrote. Yes I mentioned monica in the context of the Republican campaign Why did she vote for the Kyl Liberman amedment this past fall to bomb Iran?????? Yeah in 2007!!!!

"I imagine Eriposte, Taylor Marsh, the folks at TalkLeft, and Jerome Armstrong will all have considerable blocks of free time available to them once Clinton withdraws. So, this nomination being wrapped up will be good news for them as well."

Personally, I'm looking forward to the historical analysis of how sites like DailyKos, Booman Tribune, Talking Points Memo, etc. went into the gutter in their zeal for Obama. What a bunch of non-reality, hateful, hypocritical losers.

Why did she vote for the Kyl Liberman amedment this past fall to bomb Iran?

You poor thing. You're still delusional about that? A "sense of the senate" is not a vote to bomb Iran. And if it was so bloody important, why did Obama skip the vote? Prolly for the same reason he never convened his committee on Foreign Relations - too busy campaigning, right? As for Iran, perhaps you've seen the headlines about Ahmadinejhad getting a warm reception in Baghdad? You do understand, that was one of the things the US did NOT want to happen. And now the IAEA's making noises about Iran's lack of transparency on the nuke research they were doing. But maybe you don't think Iran's a bad actor in the world, and their Quds force is a bunch of li'l bunnies frolicking on the border?

iamcoyote: "But maybe you don't think Iran's a bad actor in the world, and their Quds force is a bunch of li'l bunnies frolicking on the border?"

the Quds force? oh the horror! worse than the Soviet Union, I bet

The desperation of the Clinton campaign is making iamcoyote sould like a pants pissing right-winger.

whoops, "souNd like" not "souLd like"

Hey Gay Veteran:

You sure like to use the word "piss" a lot. Hmmmmm.

Oh, also - if the Clinton campaign is the one that is desperate, why are you and your fellows sounding so shrill?

By the way, today the Canadian Embassy is apologizing to Senator Obama:

The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.

The people of the United States are in the process of choosing a new President and are fortunate to have strong and impressive candidates from both political parties. Canada will not interfere in this electoral process. We look forward, however, to working with the choice of the American people in further building an unparalleled relationship with a close friend and partner.

"their Quds force is a bunch of li'l bunnies frolicking on the border? yeah, but it's THEIR border...Iraq and Iran. It's not the United States border. We shouldn't even be there. Ahmadinejhad drives right down the streets of Baghdad to cheering crowds...Bush sneaks in and out like a cockroach.

The desperation of the Clinton campaign is making iamcoyote sould like a pants pissing right-winger.

So, you're saying Iran is not a problem? You need to read a little bit more, instead of worrying about everyone's bathroom habits.

why is Iran a problem? Because the are Muslim?

After America faced 1000s of Soviet ICBMs, I would describe Iran (and Iraq in 2003) as relatively minor problems.

why is Iran a problem? Because the are Muslim?

OMG, you're not serious, are you?

After America faced 1000s of Soviet ICBMs,

Well, let's see, Putin's lackey is heading for the Russian leadership - continuing back down a totalitarian path. They're also good buddies and pals with Iran right now. So now those 1000s of ICBMs have a dedicated oil supply, plus they're helping with Iran's nuclear program.

Still not a problem?

Bush is a uniter after all. He brought Iraq and Iran together.

Holy cow--after reading an article on how delegates are chosen in TX (I knew it was weird, but didn't realize how weird) I think whichever candidate can explain the system in a way that makes sense should be crowned president on the spot.

All this talk about what Hillary should do if she wins the popular vote in TX but doesn't win the delegate count--I'm guessing no one's going to know who wins the delegate count in TX Tuesday night. Seems like there's more that happens on March 29 and again on June 12, so I don't see how anyone will know what the delegate count is for a while.

eRiposte....wow what a friggin mistake. I actually started reading the thread and made it about half way...well I had to stop. Wow, The hate and outrage emanating from theme..wow....it's one thing from the usual suspects...but boy the vitriol coming from allegedly fellow democrats because you differ in your opinion is just disgusting. Anyway to this day, it speaks far more about them and what they have become versus you. I really thought The Democratic Party was the party of tolerance, the party of diversity and differing opinions. I thought the left blogosphere was better too. Well I was wrong. This isn't the case since Senator Obama has blessed us all with his candidacy. Apparently criticizing the new centrist Democratic King is just not acceptable even if you say a hundred times that you'll support and vote for him should he win the nomination these days...nope...it's got to be pure idolatry and adulation...anything less and the screams,howls, name calling, tantrums, and whines from them is frequent, frantic, fierce, and furious. How friggin sad!

Sigh...I'm done with them, and am having tremendous trouble when the movement candidate's movement is made up of people like this. It's not healthy at all! So AFter reading many comments in this thread even from some website regulars, I've decided I don't want to be a part of something so vile and intolerant. I am done watching people such as yourself, Joe Wilson, Paul Krugman, Taylor Marsh, etc..etc.. being ripped to pieces because of the attitude of how dare they write something critical of Senator Obama. Haven't we already witnessed this type of behavior with the Boy King Dimson's followers?

ONce again, as I've said all along, I'll vote for him holding my nose (John McCain sucks and it's not necessarily SEnator Obama per se as much as the members of his movement I don't care for). So after visiting and reading this thread after a long day at work today, I've decided no money and no no volunteering for his campaign..nope.

WEll, all I wanted to do was to let you know that I appreciate your voicing your opinion and writing about your concerns and issues here. I have many of them myself and also concerns about Senator Clinton.I hope you continue to write. I may not agree with everything you write, but I do enjoy it and often think it's well reasoned and factually based. I appreciate your perspective. Keep on keeping on no matter what happens after tomorrow. I wonder if there'll be any heads exploding if things don't turn out exactly as many here are hoping....because if they don't...oh the humanity! Come to think of it if they do turn out as many here are hoping...oh the humanity!

Its funny how Obama supporters are tired of having to web surf and counter-point anything Hillary. Do they realize that for their progessive Obama movement to succeed , they will have to keep working at it to elect a majority in Congress? A real majority. 1 man does not a movement make.

"one comment on the AUMF. Many, many Democratic Congressmen voted against it. Millions around the world protested it. The UN was on the ground, finding nothing. People on this blog were screaming at the top of their lungs not to do it. Hillary Clinton, and other Dems voted to authorize Bush despite the fact any sane person could see he was hell bent on invading, reason be damned."

"The UN was on the ground, finding nothing."

That's right. They found nothing from inspections which began on 27 November 2002.

The AUWF was voted on in October.

You have your timeline wrong.

Emal, I'm amazed too. This stuff just floors me. And all self inflicted. Some uniter, Obama is.

In any event, wonder who Obama's running mate's gonna be?

Gimme a break, petey, this is the kinda shit you've been trying for years to stir up and you've failed miserably. Your 'puke party is just as bad at dividing us as they were at uniting the country. Enjoy it while you can, monkey boy, it's not gonna last much longer.

In any event, wonder who Obama's running mate's gonna be?

Heh. He's too cool for a running mate - he's gonna go it alone. That's why the call him "the ONE," a Veep would be superfluous.

iamcoyote...what reason should we fear Iran? I am serious. One reason....because they hate our freedom?

Maybe he'll pick Michelle?

"You have your timeline wrong." no. In fact inspections by the IAEA had been routine in Iraq. Ever heard the name Scott Ritter? The Bush cover story was that they were not finding anything because Saddam was hiding his programs.

We don't have anything to fear from Iran.

Look at Iran's situation closely and one can hardly be too critical of their desire to advance their nuclear self-sufficiency.

Neither the US nor Israel faces any sort of existential threat from Iran.

"You have your timeline wrong." no. In fact inspections by the IAEA had been routine in Iraq.

Not between 1998 and November of 2002 they weren't.

Saying that "inspectors were on the ground finding nothing" when Clinton was voting on the AUMF is incorrect. There had not been any inspectors on the ground in Iraq for almost 4 years when that vote happened.

T2, can you show me where I said we should "fear" Iran? I said they're a problem - and they are. Just because Bush wanted to bomb them doesn't mean they aren't a problem that the international community needs to deal with.

Also, Ritter resigned UNSCOM in 1998 and inspections didn't start again until 11/02. Ritter himself resigned because "Iraq is not disarming", Ritter said on August 27, 1998, and in a second statement, "Iraq retains the capability to launch a chemical strike." Somewhere along the line, he apparently did a 180, (I didn't know that), and started talking out against the Bushies and saying there weren't WMDs. But the timeline is correct - inspectors were pulled out in '98, and didn't get back in until the AUMF forced Saddam to accept them back in.

Maybe he'll pick Michelle?

And then she can run in 2012 on her vast experience?

If Michelle became VP, for the first time in my adult life I would be proud of my country.

America hater!!

"Oh, also - if the Clinton campaign is the one that is desperate, why are you and your fellows sounding so shrill?"

shrill, anon? you have me confused with a McCain supporter

T2, isn't it interesting that Ahmadinejhad can make an announced visit whereas Dear Leader had to sneak in

iamcoyote: "So, you're saying Iran is not a problem? You need to read a little bit more, instead of worrying about everyone's bathroom habits."

guess iamcoyote was a supporter of Bush's war of aggression against Iraq, after all Iraq was such a threat to the sole superpower in the world

congratulations emal, you have pants pissing peter agreeing with you

My goodness, gv, that was pretty silly, even for you.

Well done eriposte.

The only reason Saddam let the UN inspectors back in was the threat of force.

It wasn't Hillary who pulled the inspectors out of Iraq.

From Col. Pat Lang, USA, RET. a bona fide heavyweight with serious creds - a former Green Beret, who was in charge of intel in the ME for the DIA. He also brought and taught Arabic and ME Studies to West Point. He also was in charge of intel for the Gulf War. And no one has done more to discredit the neocons than he.
Linked text

From Drinking the Koolaid, 2004
-excerpt-

First, there was the consistent refusal to provide witnesses and information to the U.S. Senate, especially regarding the projected costs of the war and the lack of opportunities to question key players such as General Jay Garner, who was appointed by the Defense Department to be the first head of the U.S. provisional authority in Iraq. There was also the subtle hiding of the objections of the Department of Energy and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) in the NIE of October 2002. One congressional source explained that the classified NIE was made available in its entirety to only a select few members of Congress. There were verbal briefings and an elaborate process to access the document in a secure location. But it was never clear that the 27-page unclassified version that was available to every office was missing any crucial information.

There were also false statements to Congress about providing the U.N. inspectors all the intelligence that might have helped them locate the Iraqi WMD and programs. Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has accused the administration, and especially CIA Director Tenet, of withholding information because "the truth" -- that the United States had withheld the locations of 21 high- and middle-priority sites -- might have slowed down the drive for war. The truth might have convinced Congress to take action to delay military action until the inspections were completed.

The March 7, 2003, appearance by the chairmen of UNMOVIC (Hans Blix) and the IAEA (Mohamed ElBaradei) before the U.N. Security Council was a disaster for the neoconservatives. The Iraqis and Saddam Hussein had "accelerated" cooperation with the United Nations, said Dr. Blix. Blix told the Council that Iraq had made a major concession: they had agreed to allow the destruction of the Al Samoud ballistic missiles. "We are not watching the breaking of toothpicks," Blix said. "Lethal weapons are being destroyed. . . . The destruction undertaken constitutes a substantial measure of disarmament -- indeed, the first since the middle of the 1990s."

Linked text

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~

The ten al Samouds that were destroyed in Feb. of 2003 - which were in violation of UN Resolutions were upwards of a million dollars apiece. And since they were manufactured during sanctions, their cost was considerbly more to Saddam.
(Being much more difficult during sanctions to secure the materiels and maufacture them.)

Blix, ElBaradei and the rest of the UN inspectors would not have been allowed back into Iraq without the threat of force. Simple. The mission was of disarming Saddam of WMD's achieved.

Again from PL

"Blix came down hard on the Iraqis, and we actually were in the process of destroying all these Al Samoud missiles," says Greg Thielman, the former head of the WMD section of INR. "As soon as the Iraqis agreed to do that, I sighed a big sigh of relief. I thought, the U.N. inspectors are working; we've stared Saddam down; we've forced him to do what he desperately didn't want to do, in that area of activity that was of most concern to us." Thielman believes that the Al Samoud incident shows that the administration was so intent on war that this compliance with the inspections "made no difference."

But it was after the next presentation, by IAEA chairman Mohammed ElBaradei, that "all hell broke loose" in Washington. ElBaradei, in his statement, sank the U.S. intelligence community's prestigious NIE, President Bush's State of the Union address, and Colin Powell's February 5 address to the U.N. Security Council with one blow. ElBaradei was calm in what he had to say: "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents, which form the basis for reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger are, in fact, not authentic." The Niger yellowcake documents were forgeries. Then, ElBaradei told the press that an IAEA staff member had, in fact, used the common search engine Google to determine, within hours, that the Niger documents, which had been passed on to the U.S. embassy in Rome through an anonymous source, were fakes! Members of Congress then began to grumble. In light of the contradictions, a bill was introduced demanding that the administration disclose the intelligence reports that were the basis for the statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell about the Iraqi WMD threat. It was still locked in committee when the war began.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~
IT WAS Bush who pulled the weapons inspectors, despite El Baradei speaking to the UNSecurity Council,and the whole world on Mar. 7, 2003. He blew the 2002 NIE out of the water.

"In conclusion, I am able to report today that, in the area of nuclear weapons -- the most lethal weapons of mass destruction -- inspections in Iraq are moving forward. One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Third, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment.

Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuges out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourth, ... there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in a centrifuge enrichment programme.

After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons programme in Iraq. . . . I should note that, in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its co-operation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that contributes to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern."

A few days later, Bush pulled the inspectors.

On Mar. 16, 2003 Cheney went on MTP with Russert and did his best to discredit ElBaradei.
The following day the bombing began.

The Kyle-Lieberman amendment was a stall tactic by the Dems and a chest thumping name calling opportunity for the right. All use of force was taken out of it and it was toothless. Perhaps some of you may wish to read the final version.

The 2007 NIE was which stated that Iran had ceased it's quest for nuclear weapons in 2003 was yet to be released.
Sanders, Levin, Stabenow and others who voted for it also voted against the 2002 AUMF.
The right wingers got to do their bellicose chest thumping, the Dems took the use of force out of it, essentially making it toothless and were successful in stalling long enough for the 2007 NIE.Which was released much to the chagrin of the right. There was much gnasning of teeth on the right. It worked - and we won that one.

Where do the Obama supporters get their security info from, Jessica Alba and the Black Eyed peas?

glennmcgahee, the feeling is that Obama has longer coattails than Hillary. That is certainly the theory behind why he's done so well in red states. The only way for Dems to make a filibuster-proof Senate (which seems only is necessary for Dems) is to get a big enough majority, something that's hard to imagine with Hillary on the top of the ticket.

just curious- when did Democrats start using the term "Clintonista?"

Isn't that a Rush Limbaugh thing?

Just who is tonyroma anyway?

It ain't over 'til the fat lady sings....and the fat lady is just warming up.

BO is howing his true primary colors with the lies of his NAFTA diplomacy. BUT, the one that is going to get him is OH, OH I pushed the wrong button 5 times. What do you think the MCCain campaign will do with that little gem. Do we really want this neophyte in the Oval Office with the hottest button of all? Let's get real.

The corporate marketing campaign for BO goes nowehere but down tonight. Doesn't matter what the results are. This candidate can't make in the GE and it's a death spiral from herein.

The only one with the TRUE GRIT, Stamina, Resilency is the workhorse-not showhorse--HRC. SHE is only one that can stand,fight, and win against the unprogressive wing/Republican Attack machine. SHe is warrior and she taking it to the WhiteHouse. You go, girl! Shatter that glass cieling once and for all!

BTW, I am sick to death of phony canard of his speech against the war in no stakes contest of no consequence. Get over it folks. The Buck stops at he Oval Office. The jr resident sent this country to war and the jr senator with the shaky finger ain't gonna get us out.

Even Oblahma admits his jusgement isn't 100% as evidenced by his "boneheaded" land deal with Rezko--another self-inflicted wound. Guess it's time for all you clinton haters out there to get a taste of your own medicine. The media beast has been dormant but has awoken just in time. Bet there's going to be a lot of buyer's remorse in the morning.

is KathyVT actually pants pissing peter in drag?

and what happend to pants pissing peter's other personas? bagless bagley? jarjar jj?

So, if someone could have great "judgment" without reading the NIE, then according to Sen. Obama's Rules for the Democratic PrimaryTM, why in the world would anyone else need to read the NIE?

This is faulty logic, as perhaps you know. Of course one could have good judgment without reading the NIE, but that also doesn't remove the necessity of due diligence. More to the point, throughout your argument you are implicitly asserting that going to war and not going to war are equally valid choices, when they're not anywhere close. A war is an extremely radical action in terms of lives, resources, treasure, and international relations, and an unnecessary war is particularly immoral. In the case of all politicians and pundits, my questions would be, does this person have a sufficiently high threshold for war, avoiding it unless absolutely necessary? And how good is this person's BS detector? It didn't take privileged information to know that some of Bush's rationales were BS, such as when he said Hussein was dangerous because he had gassed his own people… although that was 1988 or so, before the earlier Gulf War, when he was our ally and before Rumsfeld's famous meeting with him to reassure Hussein that business would continue. I'm concerned that not many politicians who voted for the AUMF or hawkish pundits pointed out how overblown and sketchy the Bush administration's rhetoric and attitudes were. But the NIE's role back in 2002 was to convince Congress that despite the high costs, war (or if you prefer, the very real possibility or threat of war) was necessary. There was no reciprocal obligation to prove that war wasn't necessary, nor is there ever. Even if one takes the NIE completely out of the debate, Clinton, Obama — and let's not forget McCain — deserve to be grilled on their positions on diplomacy and military action, specifically their threshold for war.

Opposing wars barring proven necessity is always good judgment, and when it comes to our politicians and public officials, I'd argue it's one of the essential measuring sticks of good judgment. It's also not as if that's a rare or solely pacifist view. Every vet I've ever known has held precisely that position. It's hard to study the major conflicts of history in detail and not hold it. It's basic sanity. In WWI, almost all the major combatants wanted to go to war, with little comprehension of what was to come. These also aren't merely abstractions or moral arguments in a vacuum, with estimates of Iraqi dead ranging from 80,000 to one million, and 4-5 million displaced Iraqis, not to mention mounting American casualties, a cost of 2-3 billion per week and a conservative estimate total cost of three trillion, devastating on so many levels and to so many worthy endeavors, the starve-the-beast conservative strategy taken beyond Reagan's wildest dreams, but with a loss of international prestige and a massive trade imbalance thrown in.

Let us say (or grant) for the sake of argument that Clinton's vote was made with little political calculation but out of responsibility, that she felt as John Kerry claims to have felt, and that the public statements of both on the AUMF should be taken at face value, that they were voting for a process rather than a war, and Clinton felt the AUMF was necessary to make Iraq comply with weapons inspections. I still question both her threshold for war and her BS detector. I question her rhetoric, claims and vote on Iran. I question her choice to use the rhetoric of Bush and Giuliani about 9/11 and the "war of terror" back in the summer of 2007 when she was high in the polls and it was unnecessary, just as I question her choice to run her fear-based three A.M. ad. Whatever the short-term gains, it's bad long-term politics. And all those questions are valid and pertinent. It's fair to criticize how such issues are raised, but absolutely such issues should be raised.

None of that is to say Obama shouldn't be criticized or scrutinized. Personally, I have serious concerns about both Dem candidates That said, while there are meaningful differences between the Dem candidates, but both are worthy and the much wider gap is between them and McCain, who is essentially promising to continue Bush's disastrous policies. Hillary Clinton has been subjected to unfair treatment, as has been virtually every major Dem for a couple decades now, and a shameful amount of sexism as well. That same general treatment will turn on whomever the eventual Democratic nominee is, even if for Obama it may be a bit muted. But there several big picture challenges I see. One is media reform, or holding them accountable. Another is holding all campaigns accountable. A third is looking at the long game, or what some are calling transformational politics versus transactional politics, because conservatives have done that very effectively over the past 50-some years. Lastly, related to the nominal subject of this post, is avoiding unnecessary wars and heavily scrutinizing all our candidates on such issues as part of the vetting process.