PDA

View Full Version : Hillary losing the base?


Taco John
08-21-2007, 11:37 PM
Hillary's War

Posted August 21, 2007

Hillary Clinton addressed a group of veterans in Kansas City yesterday and proclaimed that "we've begun to change tactics in Iraq," and those changed tactics are "working." "We're just years too late in our tactics," she lamented.

(Note: The first report I read, on Huffington Post and from the New York Post, quoted Hillary as saying "the surge" is working. Now that I have seen the full speech, I can quote her exactly. "We've begun to change tactics" . . . But what else is she talking about except George W. Bush's Hail Mary surge? What other "new tactics" have we begun to try? The surge is the story. She was, of course, talking about the surge. Arguing about how she characterized it misses the essential and crucial point. It obfuscates, as in Karl Obfuscate Rove, which is exactly what every Republican argument is meant to do.)

What does Hillary mean by "working"? How is the surge working? What is it accomplishing? What is it meant to accomplish? What, in the war gospel according to Hillary, is the goal of the surge? Is it the same goal she had in mind when she voted to allow Bush to go to war in Iraq if he wanted to? Is her only regret now that our "tactics" were flawed, i. e., we did not send enough Americans to accomplish whatever the Bush/Clinton goal is right from start?

I suspect all she meant to do in Kansas City yesterday was pander a little to the Vets, be enough of the Hillary they want to get some of their votes, you know. But her declaration that the surge is "working" and that we're just "years too late in our tactics" goes beyond standard politician-pander to reveal something terribly wrong in her thinking. She has given us a glimpse beneath the mask -- there's the real Hillary. Years too late in our tactics? How many more Americans and Iraqis should have died under her leadership, with her superior tactics, to achieve her unspecified goal ("victory"?)? Does she think the American people have turned against this unwinnable, unconstitutional, criminal war only because Bush didn't surge from the beginning?

I have been thinking I would feel compelled to vote for Hillary if the Democrats nominated her because that would be the only meaningful way to cast a vote against the horrifying, entirely and eternally discredited Republican party.

I'm not sure now how meaningful that vote would really be. And I don't think I'm going to be able to do it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-dwyer/hillarys-war_b_61291.html

Taco John
08-21-2007, 11:38 PM
Here are a few comments following the article for amusement...

recessdawn (See profile | I'm a fan of recessdawn)
That makes two of us.
Log in | posted 02:03 pm on 08/21/2007


snaggster (See profile | I'm a fan of snaggster)
And a whole lot of others. I really think we need a woman for president, but I won't be voting for her. I don't care who the other choices are. Not voting for war mongers.
Log in | Parent | posted 02:59 pm on 08/21/2007


ikebona (See profile | I'm a fan of ikebona)
Le the real Hillary stand up.
Authorized the war, then became an anti-war candidate, then opposed timetable for withrawal before supporting timetable for withrawal. Now she says the surge is working?

This is the dumbest presidential candidate ever. No judgment whatsoever. Has she been tricked again like with her vote to authorize the war?

wTime for a woman President? Yes. But we need the right one, not this one. I'll take Michelle Obama anytime.
Log in | Parent | posted 05:19 pm on 08/21/2007


ReasonIsMyReligion (See profile | I'm a fan of ReasonIsMyReligion)
What we COULD have done years ago is make deals with the Sunnis and their militias -- formerly known prior to rebranding as our sworn enemy, the pro-Saddam pro-Baath Insurgents -- so that they could defend their people from Shiite murderers, some even wearing Police and Army uniforms by night and reporting to PM al-Maliki and his patrones by day.

There are no winners here. Hillary doesn't seem to get that; she's a survivor, programmed to avoid losing. Different.

Hillary is prepping the US public for her pending inheritance of the war. Hardly the moral high ground.
Log in | Parent | posted 05:36 pm on 08/21/2007


Stevelagain (See profile | I'm a fan of Stevelagain)
Hillary knows exactly what she's doing. She knows the election in 08 will be about who is best able to wage war on terrorists.

What you are seeing is your front-runners moving away form the radical left and toward the middle in preparation for the primary and the actual election. Thus you hear Hillary and Obama talking about staying in Iraq to avoid collapsing the region (pulling out slowly) and fighting terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

As I said in another post, that giant sucking sound you hear is your front runners leaving the room and moving to the middle, now!

Where does Hillary and Obama really stand? Who knows. No one.
Log in | Parent | posted 07:17 pm on 08/21/2007


lucid (See profile | I'm a fan of lucid)
Yup it is working as intended. The war profiteers are make lots and lots of money.
Log in | Parent | posted 08:15 pm on 08/21/2007


ReasonIsMyReligion (See profile | I'm a fan of ReasonIsMyReligion)
Steve,

You mean the radical left that is sync with 75% of the country? Time to redefine terms.

Snarks aside, who wins in '08 has less to do with waging war on terrorism than:
a) extricating from Iraq -- which will REDUCE the anti-US antigonism that instigates terrorists; and
b) coming to the aid of the middle class -- terrorized by then 7 years of Repuke rule and autocratic shenanigans.

Agreed re Hillary and Obama's true colors. Shades of blue, regardless.
Log in | Parent | posted 08:58 pm on 08/21/2007


AxelDC (See profile | I'm a fan of AxelDC)
Since when does the "Radical Left" include 2/3 of Americans? It's only the Fringe Right, and NeoCon Dems like Hillary and Lieberman, who support this war.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to call a 2-1 majority the "Radical Left".
Log in | Parent | posted 11:17 pm on 08/21/2007


WIpatriot (See profile | I'm a fan of WIpatriot)
Why not...51% is a MANDATE.
Log in | Parent | posted 12:17 am on 08/22/2007


Duky (See profile | I'm a fan of Duky)
And who cares? There are other candicates out there who support a get out now policy, John Edwards for example. He, at least, is a "real progressive" and will not be led around by the DLC. I just don't understand why people are giving her all the airspace. Let's move on.
Log in | Parent | posted 11:58 pm on 08/21/2007


splastershoes (See profile | I'm a fan of splastershoes)
Steve may have said "radical left" when, in fact, 2/3 of the American populace opposes the war. However, he has a point in saying that she is pandering towards the middle now. Hillary knows that she has enough people in the middle and the entire spectrum of the right against her. She's trying to gain at least a few of the swing voters of the conservatives. Yet, in doing so, she is also abandoning the demands of TWO THIRDS of the nation. While pandering to conservatives, she's rapidly losing votes from the middle voters who are anti-war. She sold out. Middle voters might have POSSIBLY forgiven her corporate-backing history, but they won't forgive her for maneuvering on such a pivotal topic as the war in Iraq.
Log in | Parent | posted 12:14 am on 08/22/2007

Ugly Duck
08-22-2007, 01:07 AM
MSNBC, _NY Post_, Drudge falsely claimed Clinton said "surge" is "working"

Media Matters for America

During an August 20 speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) said, according to The New York Times in an August 21 article, "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it's working. ... We're just years too late changing our tactics. We can't ever let that happen again." The Times also reported that "[a]ides to Mrs. Clinton said her remarks that military tactics in Iraq are 'working' referred specifically to reports of increased cooperation from Sunnis leading to greater success against insurgents in Al Anbar Province." Several other media outlets, however, have claimed that Clinton said the Bush administration's so-called "surge" policy is "working":

During an August 21 report on Democrats' positions on Iraq, an MSNBC Live on-air graphic read: "Hillary Clinton: Surge is Working, But Years Too Late For Change" -- even though the video clip of Clinton MSNBC aired during the segment itself showed her saying: "We've begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some places -- particularly in Al Anbar Province -- it's working."

In an August 21 article -- headlined, "Iraq Surge Working, But Too Late: Hillary Clinton" -- the New York Post reported: " 'It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics,' [Clinton] said, referring to the beefed-up U.S. troop presence battling insurgents in Iraq, including war-torn Anbar province." The Post further asserted that "Clinton's positive assessment of the troop surge puts her in agreement with some high-ranking military officials and scholars, but in direct opposition to many fellow Democrats." But Clinton did not give a "positive assessment of the troop surge," and her statement was not in reference to "Iraq, including the war-torn Anbar province"; rather, she cited Al Anbar as one place where the "change [of] tactics" has brought positive results.
On August 21, a banner headline on the Drudge Report read: "Hillary on Surge? 'It's Working' ..."

A headline on the website JustHillary.com read: "At veterans' convention, HRC says surge working but bring troops home..."
The Associated Press paraphrased Clinton's statement in an August 21 report on her speech, reporting: "New military tactics in Iraq are working but the best way to honor U.S. soldiers is 'by beginning to bring them home,' Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton told war veterans Monday." Clinton, however, did not refer specifically to the "surge" policy, and the AP story cropped Clinton's quote to suggest that she was speaking more broadly.

On August 21, The Washington Times reported: " 'It's working,' Mrs. Clinton said of the troop surge yesterday in a speech at the Veterans of Foreign Wars national convention in Kansas City, Mo., a group at odds with her votes for a pullout and against emergency troop funding."
As Tim Grieve noted on Salon's War Room blog, even The New York Times, which, as Grieve wrote, "quotes Clinton more fairly than the Washington Times does" reported that Clinton's remarks were "notable because Mrs. Clinton has been a consistent critic of the Bush administration's troop escalation in Iraq, and Republican presidential candidates have been seizing on signs of progress in Al Anbar Province in arguing against a troop withdrawal."

http://blog.radioleft.com/blog/_archives/2007/8/21/3173538.html

Taco John
08-22-2007, 02:34 AM
MSNBC, _NY Post_, Drudge falsely claimed Clinton said "surge" is "working"




No, she said it... Media matters is trying to obfuscate (and losing credibility in the process).

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/KLXso2HnGwI" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed>


She's having to do a lot of mincing of words right now. It probably wont matter. Come October 08, she's going to be sounding like the blood-thirstiest hawk there ever was, trying to out-hawk Rudy or Romney.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 08:19 AM
Hillary isn't the only liberal saying the surge is working, for what it's worth. Durbin said the same thing on one of the sunday news shows, and there have been a couple of others. The talking point is different, now, it's about the political side. In fact, to me the fact that some Democrats have started to flip on it is the strongest evidence that it is working.

At any rate, of course what she was doing was pandering. That's why she develops a southern accent on random campaign stops or sounds like the leader of a soul church chior at others.

But all of it I think is academic... she's still leading and that hasn't changed since the start, basically. None of this behavior seems to be hurting her.

SBK
08-22-2007, 08:53 AM
None of this behavior seems to be hurting her.

It's not going to help when she's representing the party.......

HonestChieffan
08-22-2007, 09:01 AM
She continues to demonstrate saavy...shes appealing to disaffected moderates on both sides and looks unstopable against the clowns the republicans have out there. Sad day for America if she or any demo gets in

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 09:31 AM
Hillary appealing to moderates? WoW! It really is a bizarro world when she's advancing the same agenda just with modifications.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 09:37 AM
It's not going to help when she's representing the party.......

On the contrary, I think that Hillary has had the benefit of starting her general election campaign early. Without anyone polling within 15 points of her or so, she's free to simply concentrate on reinventing herself and rehabilitating her image with those outside the Democratic party.

BucEyedPea
08-22-2007, 09:42 AM
I read those polls on Hill are wrong. USA today claims she's actually in a dead heat with Obama.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2007, 09:44 AM
Like it or not, the facts bear out that she is doing a fantasic job of shedding her far left image and has media over and over propping her up on the more moderate stands and positions...we may know iy=ts a scam or hate her to her core but bottom line is she is doing a number on the republicans who cannot come up with a plan to get anyone elected and Bush is killing us...sorry but its real...I dread the day shes elected

patteeu
08-22-2007, 09:50 AM
On the contrary, I think that Hillary has had the benefit of starting her general election campaign early. Without anyone polling within 15 points of her or so, she's free to simply concentrate on reinventing herself and rehabilitating her image with those outside the Democratic party.

I agree completely.

Cochise
08-22-2007, 10:14 AM
And to expand upon what I said about how she's got the benefit of starting the general election campaign early, as evidence for that: do you see her out there attacking the other Democratic candidates...? I can't think of when she has recently. Is she sending her spouse out on the attack like Edwards and Obama have done recently?

She's not doing anything like that. Bill is out there smiling, and raising money, cracking jokes, looking like a likeable guy. They aren't going to try to come off as some steely politician couple, shooting venom at others. She wants her campaign to look like the Sopranos spoof that she did. Like they are jokers, they have fun, like she's a good-natured female corporate executive and he's a retiree who'd offer you a nice cigar on the golf course and slap your back when he told you a joke.

Contrast that with Obama's wife taking shots at their home life, or Edwards running his wife out with policy, yelling about how people want to shut him up, saying Hillary isn't a real woman and he'd be better for women than she would...

The smartest thing she is doing right now is that she is acting like someone who doesn't to this point have any serious competition. The Clinton machine knows how to win elections if it knows anything, and in this case, they have a good strategy. She's going to continue to try to look presidential and ignore the others.

When Obama spoke about sitting down for tea with Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Hillary blasted him saying that you don't grant those people legitimacy, you don't bring them up to your level and treat them as equals. She's employing the same policy. Don't fight with them, don't engage in feuds, because in voters minds it will drag you down to their level. She's doing the right thing, tactically, which is to not be pestered and just ignore them.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 10:18 AM
Hillary appealing to moderates? WoW! It really is a bizarro world when she's advancing the same agenda just with modifications.


I kind of wondered the same thing... If there's one thing she's NOT doing, it's appealing to moderates. Some people just say stuff because they think it makes them sound smart, I think.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2007, 10:33 AM
Denial among Republicans is an art form....like it or not the reconstruction of Hillary is moving forward in a more centrist manner

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 11:39 AM
I despise Hillary and will never forgive the Dems if she she becomes commander and queef. I don't think she will. That being said this is about the most worthless artlcle I have ever read. If you're going to cap on her at least make the speech your capping on available.

I will say this, Hillary at least understands the nature of this high stakes game were playing here and how much we have on the line already unlike many of the bloody boxes that support her party. I just don't see the Dems if they are elected pulling out either. I think that is what disappoints the hippies on the left more than anything.

HonestChieffan
08-22-2007, 11:43 AM
Oh we will pull out of Iraq regardless who is elected. The new president cannot afford to try to fix this mess, we have no evolved exit strategy, the entire design of the Iraqi's taking on reponsibility has collapsed and the Muslim leadership has no interest in any peace. The entire deal is a shambles

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2007, 11:45 AM
This was predictable...

Barring something shocking happening TO her campaign, or WITH Obama's campaign....she has the Democratic nomination secured. She knows that.

Once that is accomplished, then she has to trick Average Americans into thinking that she is somehow, miraculously and mysteriously, NOT the far left bleeding-heart socialist Democratic radical that she use to be.

She has to persuade Average Americans she is a "moderate," because a radical will not win in the general election.

In other words, she's masquarading as a wolf in sheep's clothing.

The majority of Average Americans will eventually see the ruse; and the Democratic party will once again be left shaking their heads wondering...."how the hell did we lose, AGAIN?"

Cochise
08-22-2007, 11:46 AM
Oh we will pull out of Iraq regardless who is elected.

Patently absurd.

We are not going to pull out even if one of the Democratic candidates wins. That's their dirty little secret. They would welcome defeat, but not if it's going to be on their watch. They don't want the political consequences.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2007, 11:48 AM
I despise Hillary and will never forgive the Dems if she she becomes commander and queef.

like you will ever forgive the dems for anything



as for hillary, i'm not sure she ever had the "base" ..... it was just a lack of valid options.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2007, 11:50 AM
This was predictable...

Barring something shocking happening TO her campaign, or WITH Obama's campaign....she has the Democratic nomination secured. She knows that.

Once that is accomplished, then she has to trick Average Americans into thinking that she is somehow, miraculously and mysteriously, NOT the far left bleeding-heart socialist Democratic radical that she use to be.

She has to persuade Average Americans she is a "moderate," because a radical will not win in the general election.

In other words, she's masquarading as a wolf in sheep's clothing.
wow ... exchange hillary with the name george and you basically have the last election.

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 12:19 PM
like you will ever forgive the dems for anything



as for hillary, i'm not sure she ever had the "base" ..... it was just a lack of valid options.

I just wish they would get their shit together.

1. Quit talking about raising taxes.
2. Leave our friggen guns alone.
3. Give up on the nanny government thing.

Where are the ****ing blue dog democrats when you need them? My problem is with Democrats in general it's the direction the party has gone. What you and I most likely see as Dems and what we want is not identical. I have the same problem with some on the right. They are not what the party used to be about either. What ever happened to the fiscal conservative who was for a smaller government? For the record I have voted libertarian for some time now. The one exception is Ahhhhnold. The Dems in the People's Republic of California are super wacked which may be why I come across a little more harsh when I post about them. I have been critical of both Bush and Giuliani though and you never seem to notice that. Hell even ultra nutless has noticed that. You keep trying to push me to the right of you and in reality I probably should be there. I am far form a right winger at this point though.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 12:21 PM
Oh we will pull out of Iraq regardless who is elected. The new president cannot afford to try to fix this mess, we have no evolved exit strategy, the entire design of the Iraqi's taking on reponsibility has collapsed and the Muslim leadership has no interest in any peace. The entire deal is a shambles

That's so 2006. :shake:

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 12:21 PM
For the record Laz it would be nice if you addressed what I posed some times instead of just trying to push me to the right. Even in my last post I thought the attack on Hillary was weak the way it was done and said so. Instead of noting that and posting on my comment you just tried to push me to the right like you do 95% of the time.

HolmeZz
08-22-2007, 12:22 PM
All her base are belong to us.

Chief Faithful
08-22-2007, 12:25 PM
Patently absurd.

We are not going to pull out even if one of the Democratic candidates wins. That's their dirty little secret. They would welcome defeat, but not if it's going to be on their watch. They don't want the political consequences.

Clinton abandoned Somolia as soon as things got a little bloody. You don't think they would do the same in Iraq?

Taco John
08-22-2007, 12:27 PM
Patently absurd.

We are not going to pull out even if one of the Democratic candidates wins. That's their dirty little secret. They would welcome defeat, but not if it's going to be on their watch. They don't want the political consequences.



I agree. In fact, if Hillary gets elected, I think that she pursue the war more aggressively. She would be arrogant enough to think that she can pull the coal from the fire. Turning Iraq around would be a legacy creating moment for her. She'd be able to say she succeeded where the Republicans failed. That's exactly what she'd go after.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2007, 12:28 PM
3. Give up on the nanny government thing..
so tell me ...... do you consider the Bush admin to be running a Nanny government?

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 12:28 PM
That's so 2006. :shake:

I am getting to the point where I think there is no reason to even reply to the stupid shit this particular poster keeps putting up.

Which candidates are even promising an immediate withdraw?

Taco John
08-22-2007, 12:30 PM
Which candidates are even promising an immediate withdraw?


With support? Only Ron Paul.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2007, 12:30 PM
For the record Laz it would be nice if you addressed what I posed some times instead of just trying to push me to the right. Even in my last post I thought the attack on Hillary was weak the way it was done and said so. Instead of noting that and posting on my comment you just tried to push me to the right like you do 95% of the time.
i don't need to push you anywhere

you may not BE a republican ..... but you hatred toward dems puts you right in the same club as them.

you spend virtually ever second of your posting time in D.C. attacking the left.

so ..........


i "push" you no more often than you attack the left. :shrug:

pikesome
08-22-2007, 12:34 PM
I agree. In fact, if Hillary gets elected, I think that she pursue the war more aggressively. She would be arrogant enough to think that she can pull the coal from the fire. Turning Iraq around would be a legacy creating moment for her. She'd be able to say she succeeded where the Republicans failed. That's exactly what she'd go after.

This is spot on IMHO. I'm not a fan of Hillary but she isn't stupid, winning would make her the greatest Pres since WWII (at least that's going to be the claim) and losing will be all Bush's fault for getting us in the mess. A win-win if you ask me.

on edit:
It would be the proof Democrats would pimp that Democrats and women aren't completely worthless in war if it turns out good. And, as I typed, losing will be Bush's fault.

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 12:34 PM
so tell me ...... do you consider the Bush government a Nanny government?

Abso****inglutely. This is a terrible administration. I wasn't for going into Iraq and I was violently against the Anti-Patriot Act. I also completely disagree with all the new shit that just went through on the wire tapping. We continue to draw closer to absolute power and with that comes power that corrupts absolutely.

I hate the way Bush has totally pissed on the above average American to totally handle big money in this country as well.

Taco John
08-22-2007, 12:39 PM
This is spot on IMHO. I'm not a fan of Hillary but she isn't stupid, winning would make her the greatest Pres since WWII (at least that's going to be the claim) and losing will be all Bush's fault for getting us in the mess. A win-win if you ask me.

on edit:
It would be the proof Democrats would pimp that Democrats and women aren't completely worthless in war if it turns out good. And, as I typed, losing will be Bush's fault.



She's already talking about it:

"It shouldn't have taken this long."

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 12:40 PM
Abso****inglutely. This is a terrible administration. I wasn't for going into Iraq and I was violently against the Anti-Patriot Act. I also completely disagree with all the new shit that just went through on the wire tapping. We continue to draw closer to absolute power and with that comes power that corrupts absolutely.

I hate the way Bush has totally pissed on the above average American to totally handle big money in this country as well.


Never mind, I guess I'm a neocon in Laz's eyes.

patteeu
08-22-2007, 12:41 PM
I am getting to the point where I think there is no reason to even reply to the stupid shit this particular poster keeps putting up.

Which candidates are even promising an immediate withdraw?

Bill Richardson is the only democrat I know of although Kucinich and Gravel are probably doing so also. I think Kucinich is going to bring our troops home to work in soup kitchens in our major cities and Gravel is going to redeploy them to the moon to take the high ground.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2007, 12:42 PM
Abso****inglutely. This is a terrible administration. I wasn't for going into Iraq and I was violently against the Anti-Patriot Act. I also completely disagree with all the new shit that just went through on the wire tapping. We continue to draw closer to absolute power and with that comes power that corrupts absolutely.

I hate the way Bush has totally pissed on the above average American to totally handle big money in this country as well.
so if you KNOW that the republicans are into the "nanny" thing as well ... just in a different form then why do you constantly talk about the "Dems and their nanny government" when in reality it's a modern day political situation for both sides.

as for raising taxes ....... this adminstration hasn't raised taxes. They just put off all the finanicial issues for future administrations to handle. If Bush stayed in office he would have to raise taxes or slash and burn.

as for guns .... you know, f#ck your guns. i don't really care one way or the other.

We have more important things to deal with then whether all the big tough guys out there can enlarge their penis size with a .9mm.

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 12:59 PM
so if you KNOW that the republicans are into the "nanny" thing as well ... just in a different form then why do you constantly talk about the "Dems and their nanny government" when in reality it's a modern day political situation for both sides.

as for raising taxes ....... this adminstration hasn't raised taxes. They just put off all the finanicial issues for future administrations to handle. If Bush stayed in office he would have to raise taxes or slash and burn.

as for guns .... you know, f#ck your guns. i don't really care one way or the other.

We have more important things to deal with then whether all the big tough guys out there can enlarge their penis size with a .9mm.

I don't condone it from either side. The answer isn't raising taxes it's cutting spending, period.

The gun issue is huge and cost Gore the whitehouse. I will never ever back anyone who wants to take guns away. MOF I think any candidate that wants to go after them should be considered an enemy of the state.

Mr. Laz
08-22-2007, 01:09 PM
I think any candidate that wants to go after them should be considered an enemy of the state.
wow ... you sure have the right fundamentalist zealot thing down like a republican. :hmmm:



well that's enlightening .... you're not a republican, you just share some of their extremist views on certain subjects.

BIG_DADDY
08-22-2007, 01:13 PM
wow ... you sure have the right fundamentalist zealot thing down like a republican. :hmmm:



well that's enlightening .... you're not a republican, you just share some of their extremist views on certain subjects.

I believe in the constitution and I beleive in gun ownership. It has nothing to do with penis size although that would be typical coming from the far left. As I have posted many times before, there are over 2.5 million successful defensive gun uses in this country every year. It empowers the weakest the most.

Mr. Kotter
08-22-2007, 01:18 PM
wow ... exchange hillary with the name george and you basically have the last election.

Not quite as pronounced, but....yeah....it's a tried and true approach---and it usually works, unless you are a real radical/extemist (like Hillary is.)

HolmeZz
08-22-2007, 01:24 PM
Wasted a great Zero Wing reference and everything.

Calcountry
08-22-2007, 04:17 PM
I despise Hillary and will never forgive the Dems if she she becomes commander and queef. I don't think she will. That being said this is about the most worthless artlcle I have ever read. If you're going to cap on her at least make the speech your capping on available.

I will say this, Hillary at least understands the nature of this high stakes game were playing here and how much we have on the line already unlike many of the bloody boxes that support her party. I just don't see the Dems if they are elected pulling out either. I think that is what disappoints the hippies on the left more than anything.It really sucks to pull out early.

Calcountry
08-22-2007, 04:23 PM
All her base are belong to us.Yes, and her Base is a WIDE one indeed.

mlyonsd
08-22-2007, 07:31 PM
Hillary knows if she is going to be president having a failure in Iraq will make her job and legacy even tougher to achieve. She knows she can't just leave it a quagmire and not eventually be blamed for something that will come back to haunt her or the US.

She and Biden are actually only the two dems I think that are looking down the road. Although Biden is more honest about it.

alanm
08-23-2007, 12:38 AM
She wants her campaign to look like the Sopranos spoof that she did. Like they are jokers, they have fun, like she's a good-natured female corporate executive and he's a retiree who'd offer you a nice cigar on the golf course and slap your back when he told you a joke. I'm not taking any cigars from Bill. :shake: :)

Taco John
08-23-2007, 01:44 AM
I think Obama had the best plan... Seal the borders and let them fight it out. Keep our soldiers out of their way unless specifically asked by the Iraqi government, and for only as long as they permit. Put their government in the drivers seat, with us playing shotgun.

Out side of that role, I'd just as soon pull out than waste any more American lives for a hopeless cause. Even if we did prop up the Iraqi government long enough to see some semblance of peace, it won't be long until they're civil warring again. Then what?

A real leader would have invested this nation in capturing Bin Ladin and putting him in a monkey cage while focusing the nation on an Apollo-mission-esque hunt for the next greatest energy source. We got Bush instead. I guess you go to war with the president you have.

BIG_DADDY
08-23-2007, 01:40 PM
It really sucks to pull out early.

That's what she said. ROFL

Pitt Gorilla
08-23-2007, 01:44 PM
Someone set up us the bomb!