The first woman President

[Jarod]

"The reason it makes a difference, Hillary Clinton, is because this administration lied to the American people. Her voice was one of those voices that lied to the American people."

"The reason it makes a difference is because Americans were killed and you were a part of the cover-up"

That was not what she was referring to... did you know that?

 

[iolo]

have you checked in yet?

Be a bit out of place amongst you happy honkers, wouldn't I?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Be a bit out of place amongst you happy honkers, wouldn't I?

sounds like you'd fit right in with some of them, although you need to stay out of Desh's wing.

 

[maineman]

LMAO@ taunting terrorists and claiming they are Iraqi "insurgents". You really are a moron. No wonder you're a low information Democrat.

President Bush himself referred to "insurgent strongholds" in Iraq during the 2006 SOTU.... maybe HE was a low information democrat as well?

 

[Jarod]

President Bush himself referred to "insurgent strongholds" in Iraq during the 2006 SOTU.... maybe HE was a low information democrat as well?

"Bring em on!"

 

[SmarterthanYou]

President Bush himself referred to "insurgent strongholds" in Iraq during the 2006 SOTU.... maybe HE was a low information democrat as well?

you are just finding that out now?

 

[maineman]

I always knew he was low information.... I also knew that my party would never claim him.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I always knew he was low information.... I also knew that my party would never claim him.

of course they would never claim him, but that IN NO WAY means he didn't have democratic positions

 

[christiefan915]

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."

"...Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

 

[iolo]

sounds like you'd fit right in with some of them, although you need to stay out of Desh's wing.

Where's she gone? Nothing wrong with that one.

 

[christiefan915]

That was not what she was referring to... did you know that?

They know it and they're not being honest when they use her quote.

 

[christiefan915]

or maybe there will be enough low information voters that don't care about the deaths of americans in benghazi, saying 'what difference does it make'

You're gonna have to change your s/n if you continue resorting to comments like the bolded.

 

[christiefan915]

She was on the wrong side of this issue, but that is NOT anywhere close to being insane enough to say "Bring em on" when talking about a group attacking and severely injuring our troops.

I posted her entire comment in #29 and it ends with the words "So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

 

[NOVA]

or maybe there will be enough voters without penises who are tired of voting for presidents WITH penises and seeing them mess everything up.

maybe there will be enough voters without penises who are tired of voting for presidents WITH penises ?

That would describe you no doubt....

 

[maineman]

no. I guess maybe you're too fucking dense to have figured it out before, but I am a male.

Oh wait.... was that last post one of your incredibly lame attempts at an insult?

:lol:

what a fucking loser you are, and have always been, write.

 

[J Craft]

"...Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

No one disagreed with her "in context quote", she saw all sides; she said a "unilateral" attack was not a good option and that's why she supported and voted yes on a "coalition force".Yes, she voted on a coalition invasion of Iraq , just as did the GOP.

So the point of your post was?

My point was to dissuade the previous poster of Hillary's being anti hawkish.

 

[Truth Detector]

President Bush himself referred to "insurgent strongholds" in Iraq during the 2006 SOTU.... maybe HE was a low information democrat as well?

Irony; when a low information dunce uses George Bush as his defense.

 

[Truth Detector]

"...Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security. Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?

Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.

This view has appeal to some, because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980's when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it would give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.

However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I am amused by the misuse of the term "unilateral". When was anything Bush proposed "unilateral?" Answer; nothing he proposed was unilateral and involved a coalition force of 35 member States to the UN.

By the way, did Hillary VOTE FOR the Joint Resolution on Iraq? Yes or no?

 

[Truth Detector]

I posted her entire comment in #29 and it ends with the words "So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."

When did Bush ever offer up a "unilateral" attack? Let me help you with this one because you're stuck on hyper partisan; he never did. Hillary’s words were a strawman intended to disguise her vote to give Bush authority to attack Iraq.

 

[maineman]

35 member states. I think Micronesia sent three cooks and a microwave. Righties can call it a coalition all they want... the VAST majority of coalition blood treasure was ours.