quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

Nope, try again - she was clearly arguing AGAINST war, which is not "each foot planted firmly on opposite sides of the fence! Even her own speech contradicts her".

quote:

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

Sounds to me she's keeping her opinions open and vague. She's stating the obvious...that war is never a good option...but cannot be ruled out. That it may be the lesser of the evils...but it's still not a good option.

quote:

You do realize that you just confirmed my argument and refuted your own - don't you?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

You do realize that you just confirmed my argument and refuted your own - don't you?

You do realize that Clinton voted for the war, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: davemiller7

tafkam, Peter_Gunn, ljmac:

Don't confuse these liberals with the facts. Their minds(?) are made up. They've been drinking the far-left's KoolAid and loving it. They see their hopes and dreams of turning the country into a socialist state, possibly even into a neo-fascist state getting closer. They're loving it and nothing we are going to say or show to them is going to change it, unfortunately.

-Dave

quote:

If you intended to surrender on your defense of the original quote-out-of-context, a simple statement to that affect would have been sufficient. Why try to change the subject?

Be that as it may, your attempt to change the subject is fatally flawed by the fact that what Clinton voted for, what the neocons have been trying to palm off as a war resolution, was in fact something completely different from what you assert it to be.

If you ever read that resolution, you will note that there are a whole string of gates through which Bush had to travel before opening the military action the resolution ALLOWED, not required, him to open.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021002-2.html

Bush skipped the gates, in affect teleporting from step five to step 80, and ignored both the intent and the letter of the resolution for which Clinton and many others voted.

You can't blame her, or anyone else, for Bush simply ignoring the law.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud



I didn’t make any such defense – you are confusing people on the board. I simply pointed out she supported the war with her vote, whatever pretense you want to make otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud


I didn’t make any such defense – you are confusing people on the board. I simply pointed out she supported the war with her vote, whatever pretense you want to make otherwise.

quote:

Don't confuse these liberals with the facts. Their minds(?) are made up. They've been drinking the far-left's KoolAid and loving it. They see their hopes and dreams of turning the country into a socialist state, possibly even into a neo-fascist state getting closer. They're loving it and nothing we are going to say or show to them is going to change it, unfortunately.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud


I didn’t make any such defense – you are confusing people on the board. I simply pointed out she supported the war with her vote, whatever pretense you want to make otherwise.

Which is why liberals cannot have a successful talk-radio show!

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

quote:

Don't confuse these liberals with the facts. Their minds(?) are made up. They've been drinking the far-left's KoolAid and loving it. They see their hopes and dreams of turning the country into a socialist state, possibly even into a neo-fascist state getting closer. They're loving it and nothing we are going to say or show to them is going to change it, unfortunately.

I'm sorry, you'd think I'd know better by now......

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud


I didn’t make any such defense – you are confusing people on the board. I simply pointed out she supported the war with her vote, whatever pretense you want to make otherwise.

Which is why liberals cannot have a successful talk-radio show!

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

"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." - Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY. Oct 10, 2002

Oh goody a new message board where Cons try to spread blame for Bush's mistakes upon Dems by misquoting the Dems they are lying about.

Here is the REST of the Clinton speech out of which you carefully snipped a quotelet. You will note that WITH ITS CONTEXT, it OPPOSES war which is, of course, the exact opposite of what your careful editing is intended to imply, that she SUPPORTED war:

"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 it's appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present fact is not a good option."
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

quote:

And your assertion to that affect was incorrect, as I have shown.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tafkam

For that matter, the majority led House and Senate have repeatedly voted to continue funding the war...even though they have the votes to end it they have not done so.

I wonder why?

quote:

For that matter, the majority led House and Senate have repeatedly voted to continue funding the war...even though they have the votes to end it they have not done so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And your assertion to that affect was incorrect, as I have shown.

It's not really an assertion, but a matter of history - there was a vote on the war, and she supported it, whatever her claimed concerns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: todd_t

quote:

For that matter, the majority led House and Senate have repeatedly voted to continue funding the war...even though they have the votes to end it they have not done so.

Because abrupting killing all war funding would be a logisitical nightmare. Any war ops must be closed out over time (months/years).

quote:

Your assertion is false to fact, as I have shown - and as you have made no attempt to rebut.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Your assertion is false to fact, as I have shown - and as you have made no attempt to rebut.

I am not sure how one 'rebuts' the fact that she voted for the war when....she voted for the war. If you have some evidence to demonstrate she did not in fact cast that vote, that would be a legitimate rebutal - but speculating about her mindset and intention is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SwedishCovenant

Because, as I have shown, what you call 'voting for the war' was not, and never has been, 'voting for the war'. Did you read the document that you are trying to palm off as a war resolution? I posted a link to it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn

quote:

ORIGINAL: RichLP

But the OP and a lot of people keep harping about HUSSEIN, HUSSEIN, HUSSEIN. Why is this being done? You just said in western culture it means nothing; since America is a western country, why are westernized American Christians harping on his middle name?

And in traditional cultures names MEAN something. The Arabs and Jews are semitic peoples and their languages are rich with meaning; look at either the Koran or Old Testament. Names mean a big deal. An example: Jacob's name was changed to... ISRAEL.

So Americans KNOW that Hussein comes from "HASAN" which means blessing, right? And that's why they keep highlighting "HUSSEIN?" These are not people who support Barack Obama. They do not consider him a blessing. They're entitled to their views, but theirs is not an agenda of support; it's an agenda of fearmongering, knowing that an exaggerated focus on his middle name will remind people of the deposed dictator of Iraq.

Did YOU even KNOW what "Hussein" meant? LOL

You just made an excellent argument for the point for which you have been so vehemently fighting against!

And many Americans know this about these cultures...that's why the emphasis.

The fact that names do have such meaning in the Eastern cultures will be just one of the reasons that part of the world will be so accepting, for the first time, of an American president.

quote:

Because, as I have shown, what you call 'voting for the war' was not, and never has been, 'voting for the war'. Did you read the document that you are trying to palm off as a war resolution? I posted a link to it.