When Hillary talks of "experience" I want to puke...

[HardWorkingDem]

Yes, Edwards voted for the Iraq War resolution, but has since apologized for it. What I want to know is this: if people like HRC are so keen on experience when dealing with the Bushies, then how the fuck did she ever believe any bullshit that came out of their mouths and vote for something and refuse to apologize for it when we all know it was wrong?

In other words, how did I, a simple Mid Western boy, know all from the Bushies was a lie, when such "experienced" people like her missed it?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Your thesis is that the value of experience is apologies

[journalist3072]

4. Isn't that amazing? So I guess the OP wants Sen. Clinton to get on her knees and beg forgiveness?

[HardWorkingDem]

5. So, are you saying...

that you believed the Bush administration when they spoke of aluminum tubes, al queda in Iraq, 45 minute nuclear attacks, drone planes with anthrax....

What I'm getting at is this: from the start, I, an ordinary well read American, knew what Colin Powell and Bush was selling was nothing more than lying fucking propaganda and now, we have a Democratic candidate daring to run on "experience".

Get real. That is the type of experience we don't need.

[ElizabethDC]

8. Well, John Edwards evidently believed it.

But I his apology is the sole reason that you think he has experience.

[HardWorkingDem]

9. He has since apologized for doing so...ergo...

he is at the least admitting he has learned something. Contrast this to HRC where she just AGAIN voted in a way similar to that, but this time regarding Iran. Remember?

[ElizabethDC]

11. But you seem to be upset simply that she believed it

your guy believed it, too. An apology doesn't erase that. If George Bush were to apologize for everything he's done in the past 7 years, would you consider him a good candidate?

[HardWorkingDem]

12. He's not my candidate...Dean and Gore are..

why do people like you keep using extremes like that?

Bush is beyond apology.

[ElizabethDC]

14. To me, apologizing doesn't change much

anybody can say anything - hence the Bush example. At what point does it become beyond apology? How many apologies does one get?

Also, thanks for the "people like you" comment (I'm not sure who people like me are - I guess you didn't want to elaborate.)

[HardWorkingDem]

15. People like you are...

the ones that throw up meaningless arguments like, "If Bush apologizes, I guess you would forgive him and vote for him"....

[ElizabethDC]

16. Well, it's a conclusion one could make

if an apology can simply erase past deeds.

[dkf]

33. Apologizing means admitting you were wrong and repenting.

It also assumes you will try to learn from your mistake...

[dansolo]

46. I don't think either one believed it

I believe that Edwards' and Clinton's votes were politically motivated. Edwards' apology, and Clinton's rationalizations, are merely attempts to nullify their previous support over what is now an unpopular war. Edwards is only sightly less contemptible, because he is willing to go on record saying that his decision was a mistake. Hillary, very much like Bush, is unwilling to even do that much, instead claiming that he was duped, first by Bush, and now by Rice.

[emilyg]

19. He's covering his ass.

[niceypoo]

26. Very succinct

The obvious in four simple words.

[creeksneakers2]

21. Hillary did not vote to authorize force against Iran

If she did and it passed, where is the force?

[niceypoo]

28. Ah, but Obama did co-sponsor the same thing so please include him in your outrage...

Now what was the name of that piece he co sponsored? Aaah, yes...it was the S. 970: Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007.

Now, if I do recall, the same piece of legislation contained a section that went something like this:

(8) The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1189) and the Secretary of the Treasury should place the Iranian Revolutionary Guards on the list of Specially Designated Global Terrorists under Executive Order 13224 (66 Fed. Reg. 186; relating to blocking property and prohibiting transactions with persons who commit, threaten to commit, or support terrorism).

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-970

[ClarkUSA]

44. S.970 was from early this year when the IAEA had still not issued its final report on Iran.

After the IAEA final report was issued, it became obvious that Iran had no imminent nuclear capability. S.970 was tabled and never brought
up for a vote.

[MGKrebs]

36. If she had based her decision solely on BuschCo statements, then maybe she should

apologize. But she didn't. As she has said many times, her decision was also based on her perception of the inherent authority in the office of the presidency, her belief that aggressive diplomacy can have constructive results (which it did in this case as Saddam offered to step down before the invasion), and her faith in the continued efforts of the weapons inspectors and the international community.

[superkia]

22. I just want to here her say that she lied to the American people...

about it. One side of her mouth says she was duped by the monkey, another side says that she made her decision based on all of her white house experience and help from all of her husbands advisers and yet she hasn't admitted that she wanted to vote for it like the rest of them for oil. Dennis Kucinich went to the floor trying to get everyone to vote no because he the only evidence they had was old and outdated just like they did with Iran here recently and the media dropped when they were caught up in it.

Out of the ones that voted yes, I only give Edwards and thats because he has been speaking out on the corruption in government and how the game is rigged...that takes guts when he has been to bilderberg and has an idea of what the elites world plan is and lives in a country where the government will take out the opposition. Ask J.F.K.

The ones that continue to allow our constitution to be attacked without even standing for us are the ones that we don't want leading us.


Wake up American sheeple, we are asleep at the wheel and about to crash and kill our children's futures. Please open your eyes and help me save my family if no one cares about theirs.

[rAVES]

38. Probably not, just to accept shes not cut out as a leader, shes a follower, always will be.

[goldcanyonaz]

2. who gives a flying fuck? A vote is a vote is a vote.

[Gman]

3. Well, this one's headed for the Greatest Page

simply because of the title.

[sniffa]

49. rightfully so

i gave it #22. :thumbsup:

[durrrty libby]

6. I want you to puke and then lap it all up. yum yum

:crazy:

[HardWorkingDem]

10. Why don't you try to add something...

instead of juvenile bullshit....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

34. Isn't The Imagery Yours?

She just extended it.

[durrrty libby]

43. Your OP is "juvenile bullshit." ignorant and insulting. I'm only

sorry that people respond to shit like this with serious replies

:dunce:

[CoffeeCat]

7. Her experience is crap, but her lies are worse...

Please remember folks, the neocons asked Bill Clinton for war with Iraq on January 26, 1998.

On that date, Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Perle and other neocons wrote a letter to
then-President Clinton and pleaded for war with Iraq. Here is a link to the letter:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

President Clinton refused the neocons' request. Then we fast forward to 2001, when Hillary stood on
the Senate floor and made a case for the Iraq war. She knew the entire thing was a lie, because the
same neocons who were using Sept 11 to sail into Iraq--were the same cast of neocons who begged
her husband for the same war in 1998.

She knew it was a lie. She said nothing. She could have mentioned the fact that these criminals
had been shopping around war with Iraq for years---and maybe we shouldn't invade. Instead, she
stood on the Senate floor and talked about Saddam's potential for nuclear-weapons development and
even suggested that there was a link between Saddam and Al Queda.

She's a damn liar. She had a front-row seat to the crimes and she could have taken down the
neocons, or at least threw a wrench in their plans.

The fact that she did this AND refuses to denounce her poor decision--speaks volumes to me, about
her corrupt, immoral and flawed ways.

[Carrieyazel]

31. Excellent post. Her Iraq vote IS still haunting her. They thought it would go away.

[loveangelc]

13. hillary cannot admit mistakes. yet another reason not to vote for her.

[rAVES]

40. Why Should she? this is her planet, she is of the ruling elite.. she does what she likes.

and you better like it.

[Fredda Weinberg]

17. If politics makes you feel ill, perhaps you don't have what it takes

HRC was my senator when she cast her vote and we all know she expected continued UN inspectors. So, while you were listening to political rhetoric, we watched in horror as, once again, the questionably legitimate regime ignored the law.

As it happens, I'm listening tonight to a retrospective on the Nixon pardon, where the consensus is that no one wanted to see a president go to prison. I'm afraid we face those circumstances today.

So, HRC did what she had to do to position herself to assume authority. Her vote was consistent with her continued good judgement.

[HardWorkingDem]

18. "Good Judgment"...

Again, please, explain to me why a simple person from the Midwest knew Colin Powell was telling a bucket of lies to the UN while a US Senator did not?

[LordJFT]

20. she knew, but put politics before principles

[LeFleur1]

23. Did You Forget About 9/11?

It's oh so easy to pretend things were normal back then, but they weren't. Congress was trying to show unity, a strong front. I know that sounds silly now that we are well aware of the plans of the administration, and the advantage they took of the bombing and killing of our citizens, but at the time there were all kinds of fears floating around, and reason to believe that our government should show unity.

When a person refuses to acknowledge facts there really is no reason to keep repeating them, but the vote WAS NOT to go to war with Iraq. Should the Senators have known Bush would do so? I think they should have. Bush has always been untrustworthy. But they might have considered it a dangerous time for our country, and backing the President on this bill might have seemed important.
I don't understand the rabid hatred for Hillary Clinton.
It's so much like those crazy neocons who actually accuse her of murder.

[HardWorkingDem]

24. You can go back and read the writing on the wall....

I believe, many of the Democrats gave a blank check to Bush simply because of Max Cleland.

And as I typed earlier, any credible, well read liberal can go back and look at how we got where we are today and KNOW it was because of lies and craven, scared Democrats like HRC.

Bush's background was quite well known before the vote and it is unforgivable for any politician not to disavow their early vote, especially when he or she again votes with Bush regarding Iran.

[rAVES]

39. NINE ELEVEN!! thats a great excuse..

[sniffa]

50. did Rudy join DU?

:shrug:

[Fredda Weinberg]

27. I watched that debacle as it happened. Powell put the director the

CIA behind him, remember? Without credible evidence to the contrary, it would have taken a national leader to stand up to the questionably legitimate regime ... and HRC was our junior senator. Her role at the time was to work well with the other senators - which she has done well.

So what I knew ... or she did ... was irrelevant. Her vote as not as you characterized and the dog and pony show was too effective to challenge at the time.

[HardWorkingDem]

47. THAT is what LEADERS do...

No, her job is not to play nice with the other Senators. Her job and the other cowering Democrats who voted along with Bush have the real job of being an opposition party.

It's not to play nice. Tell that to those who have died and have been injured in this war and their families.

[Fredda Weinberg]

53. She was 1 of 100. Despite your assertions, she was NOT a national leader

And when we elected her as our senator, this was well understood.

[HardWorkingDem]

55. Sigh....

She is just not a state of New York senator, but a US senator. And I'm sorry, but she was a national leader back then.

She was just like all the other cowering Democrats who voted for this resolution: worried about her day job and instead of listening to those who knew the truth about Iraq, played a safe card and fell for Bush's lies and BS.

What I don't get is people like her have been in politics (according to her, for 35 years). I'm 43, been following politics for over 20 years, was in the Gulf the first time around, and from the public sources I read, KNEW FOR A FACT Bush and his cronies were lying.

So, what does this say about her "experience"?

I'd much rather see her run on something else and quit hammering Obama on such a thing where her "experience" doesn't say much.

[Catherine Vincent]

25. Whew!

You got that "Edwards voted for it" in the first sentence to get it out of the way. On to Hillary bashing. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

29. But the OP left out the "Edwards cosponsored it, and Hillary didn't"......

Which I find odd.

[Carrieyazel]

30. She doesn't have the right experience; that's her problem

Seven years as a Senator, but no other official political office is not enough to fix the castastrophe that the Repukes have wrought. She has a lot of experience as a lawyer, being a close adviser, etc. but that is not going to get it done.

[Beacool]

32. I don't expect nor want her to apologize.

It actually takes more guts to stand by one's decisions than to pander to satisfy the base.

I'm sick to death of some people acting as if she was the sole Democrat who voted yes in 2002.

Remember 9/11? Remember which state Hillary represents? Then imagine if she had voted no on this resolution a few months later. Some of us barely made it out alive on that day and didn't have the privilege on being in our cozy homes watching it on TV. So, unless you were there, I don't give a damn what you think of Hillary's vote on this issue!!!!!

So much for party unity, blame Hillary for Iraq but don't bother mentioning the real culprits: Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

[sniffa]

51. that sounds like Dubya

strong leadership is sticking by your mistakes no matter how drastic they are.

[Perry Logan]

35. Anti-Hillarism is clearly a mental problem.

[GalleryGod]

41. Is that a word?

[sniffa]

52. Savage Nation?

[indimuse]

37. then puke...don't blog about it! that's .....

:puke:

[flpoljunkie]

42. Can you say crass political calculation? That's why they voted for the IWR, that and cowardice.

[dogman]

45. Sorry doesn't cut it.

I've told my children and grand-children that an apology is a nicety, but meaningless unless the underlying problem is addressed. If all one needs to do is go through life apologizing for poor judgment, what of the irreversible effects of that poor judgment? Sorry only goes so far, sorry after sorry is ridiculous. At some point a leader needs to display good judgment and accountability. If w apologized and continued his arrogant ways, would that make him any more palatable? Experience is learning and moving forward without wasting time with the "sorry" bullshit, actually do something to make it right. You can criticize Ms. Clinton if you feel she has not done that, but to look for a meaningless apology is just giving a free pass to one who has done nothing to right the wrong. Edwards moving to the side line and crying mea culpa is the image of a whiny loser. Leaders lead.

[Evergreen Emerald]

48. Here read this, and why just focus on Clinton? Edwards, Biden, Dodd, all voted for IWR

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3903339&mesg_id=3903339

[HardWorkingDem]

54. Because she is running on her "experience".....

and hammering the other Dems for not having the same "experience" as she has had.

[Beacool]

56. Nope, she's just hammering Obama for his near zero experience.

[AtomicKitten]

57. Judgment > experience.