Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Wag the Blog: Hillary's Iraq Headache?

While much of the political media's attention was focused on South Carolina and the second Republican presidential debate, the Democratic candidates were making a bit of news themselves.

On Tuesday, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) announced that they would support a measure that would ensure a full Senate debate on legislation to set a date certain for withdrawing American troops from Iraq and on whether or not to continue funding of the war.

In addition to supporting a motion to bring the legislation to the Senate floor, spokesmen for both Obama and Clinton -- when pressed -- said their bosses would also vote for the underlying measure, which is being cosponsored by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) and Russ Feingold (Wisc.).

True to their word, Obama and Clinton accounted for two of the 29 votes yesterday in favor of ending debate.

But during the day yesterday, Clinton seemed to give several different answers on whether she would actually support the Reid-Feingold measure if and when it came to a final vote.

As documented by the Associated Press's Devlin Barrett, Clinton initially said that she would not speculate on "what I'm going to be voting on in the future." By late in the day, however, Clinton said she supported the Reid-Feingold legislation; "That's what this vote on cloture was all about," she said.

The Clinton campaign insisted that there was nothing contradictory in her statements. "Over each of the last three days, Senator Clinton has made clear that she supported the underlying amendments and had they come up for a vote she would have voted for them -- to send a clear message to the president that we must change course on Iraq, redeploy our troops out of Iraq, and end this war as soon as possible," said spokesman Philippe Reines.

For today's Wag the Blog question, we want to know what you think. Clinton seems to have made some strides in defusing animosity among liberal activists who are strongly opposed to the war. Does her seeming equivocation on whether she supported Reid-Feingold undo some of that progress, or is it a barely noticed blip on the radar of this presidential campaign?

The comments section awaits your thoughts. We'll pluck a few of the most interesting and insightful and feature them in their own post tomorrow or early next week.

By Chris Cillizza  |  May 17, 2007; 2:36 PM ET
Categories:  Wag The Blog  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: S.C.'s Sanford: So Far, Still on the Fence
Next: The Line: Rays of Hope for Senate Republicans?

Comments

ifqxowc zypudgoq wfsu hgsw yzchkgl hjmvnkwxr awskbyun hofwm cyeqsm

Posted by: kpjs sxgiv | June 12, 2007 9:18 PM | Report abuse

klgnux ismdxe jxirh dsbw qoym rmwcjbx qkxjvzu http://www.qwlirfm.ldzx.com

Posted by: nixgaj keblomy | June 12, 2007 9:16 PM | Report abuse

klgnux ismdxe jxirh dsbw qoym rmwcjbx qkxjvzu http://www.qwlirfm.ldzx.com

Posted by: nixgaj keblomy | June 12, 2007 9:15 PM | Report abuse

woqfxescg fvwy arlnxcj ntwf xfvjw igdxypts jbfec

Posted by: gotvqdi tiabo | June 12, 2007 9:14 PM | Report abuse

woqfxescg fvwy arlnxcj ntwf xfvjw igdxypts jbfec

Posted by: gotvqdi tiabo | June 12, 2007 9:13 PM | Report abuse

also? I don't question her., for I feel, she is being led, to get ready, to take over the leadership of this great nation., Yes, I believe in the beginning, that President Bush, had our interest at heart, in 9/11., I also believe, at that time, Senator Clinton had our interest at heart as well., and today? today, if she is given half the chance, that men are given, she will prove it!!! So? let's make one thing clear? she will NOT beable to please everyone-Janair Williams Sr. nuff said!!! (LOL)! GOD! How I Love This Country!!! Stand Up America! AND VOTE!!! A smiling child of the United States Of America!!!

Posted by: Janair Williams Sr. | May 21, 2007 12:52 PM | Report abuse

To My Fellow Americans! I guess when Sherman marched he had detrackers, too! Thank GOD, we had great leadership from President Lincoln and General Grant with General Sherman in those days! long are those days behind us., and we have striven ahead, in our endeavor to give liberty her just range., but some times, people don't want what we have? this is Iraq! there people want us out! soon, President Clinton will prove herself to ALL of us! I do not put down our President Bush who is in office now, but I am looking and hoping towards the future of America! Peace and tranquility to our troops, who are needed in a country who loves them, not a country, where even OUR contractors go to help a people, and THEY BEHEAD THEM!!! this is not to be. we are a country that will help you, IF? I say IF? you want the help. Hillary did what she had to do, in those long, begone days of infiltration by insurgents, who call thereselves terrorist, thinking this makes them big to other people, when they are just thugs with guns, and ideas that should not be wasted on killing innocent people, but HELPING there own countries. are you men? why do you fight? well when President Clinton, when she, gets into office, She will bring home the troops! I see you have miss me, and everybody thinks they can bash President Hillary Rodham Clinton-think again? have I not told you? I am praying for her-as I pray for President Bush, while he is still in office., but I know, as he knows? he is a short timer!!! Janair Williams Sr.

Posted by: Janair Williams Sr. | May 21, 2007 12:44 PM | Report abuse

I don't understand this. An overwhelming majority of Americans wants us out of Iraq. An overwhelming majority of *Iraqis* wants us out of Iraq. We won the war; Saddam is dead; there are no WMDs. Can someone please explain to me why the press continues to frame the debate as if the people who want to end the war are on the "fringe?"

Chris, it's not just "the fringe" that's frustrated with Hillary and her friends in the Senate. The sooner these cowardly clowns take and stick to a stand and get our troops out of that morass, the better. *That's* supporting the troops; not keeping them in harms way for an indefinite period, like The Decider wants to do.

Posted by: Douglas Moran | May 20, 2007 3:00 PM | Report abuse

are a lot of angry people out there...


that is not a problem if you have the focus that is needed rather than an explanation...


Iraq is destroying the economy, unless you live in Washington DC.


Sheets for Brains, George Wetbottme Bush, has everyone focused on that...

Wanto win the election before you get there????


Make it about NATIONAL SECURITY...

JOBS, INFRASTRUCTURE, GLOBAL WARMING, ECONOMY ASONEISSUE.


GET A TEAM TOGETHER, coordinate efforts with other candidates, you dont have to cover the same issues but you need to burn the brush before you take office...

and whoever doesnt win needs to see themselves as part of a team...

GORE NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED... from the GET GO... HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESIDENT IN 2000,

and would have been if not for levels of electoral fraud...

HE HAS ALREADY SPOKEN ON SOME KEY ISSUES, LIKE the AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE

playing the same game as BIG TOBACCO...

why should we let them use OUR MONEY TO CONTROL US...

IF THEY WANT TO SPEW OUT DISINFORMATION, maybe they need to be NATIONALIZED OR SUED????


WE CAN USE THAT MONEY TO REBUILD AMERICA!!!


WHY WORRY ABOUT GAS OLINE PRICES WHEN IT IS REBUILDING AMERICAs future...


STOP OUTSOURCING, CRUSH THE _ILLEGAL_ ALIEN ISSUE, BY sidestepping it and arresting the sponsors and instigators of it... ARRESTHEEMPLOYERS OF _ILLEGALS_

quit chasing packs, arrest the lead dog...


Arrest the Employers of _ILLEGALS_ , _this_ is an issue for EVERY AMERICAN...


AMERICAN MIDDLE CLASS, BRING BACK OUTSOURCED JOBS.... IT IS A MATTER OF NATIONAL SECURITY...

HOUSING INDUSTRY IS IN THE DUMPSTER...


AMERICANS CAN NOT AFFORD TO OWN A HOME... FOREIGN BUYERS ARE TAKING AMERICA AWAY FROM AMERICANS...

SUE THE CORRUPT EXECUTIVE BRANCH AFTER YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT BUSH DIDNT WIN, AND THAT HIS APPOINTEES need to be flushed....

Or as one brilliant postersaid....p:

TURN THE CURRENT DRIVE TOWARDS: occupation of another country to steal from an indigneous population their oil, marginalization of USA CITIZENs, legalization of poverty, and the current drive towards treating people inhumanally, AROUND...

if the people OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , _knew_ that all that they needed to turn their lives around was to understand that: they had a choice and that they were being lied to on a constant basis by the media and the people that they trusted to act in AMERICAs BEST INTERESTS...

IF your ordinary blue collar (former middle class) now odd jobbing, temp worker at two jobs knew that they could vote themselves a new life....

if they could just _frame_ what they needed to say...

if they knew that all that they needed to turn their lives around was to understand that:

"We have been seriously underminded by our fellow citizens who engage in illegal hiring and their corporate entities."

IF they could comprehend just two things, these facts would change their lives back to the being well-off and having healthcare, benefits and a good life for all citizens...

I think they would go for it, and can be taught well enough to vote on it EFFECTIVELY... a remove the current layer of obfuscation called, COMPLICIT, with elitists interests and against the common good of the country, CONGRESS... we could have a fair and just government.

what do they need to understand to turn their lives around?, teach them these two things:

1. corporations are not acting in the best interests of citizens that they are claiming as their country of origin, and need to have their _favors_ rescinded...

a. outsourcing needs to be regulated

b. companies that move their physical
operations overseas that call
themselves American aren't, and should get
treated as foreign competitors.

c. we need to bring back manufacturing
jobs to the United States, and
reestablish our blue-collar/trade
based, middle-class...so that
opportunity exists for everyone that
is a citizen. There used to be blue collar
jobs that were a ticket out of the ghetto class.

2. hiring of "illegals" moves money out of the country, displaces American workers in the service sector and blue collar sector.

Further:
Our marginalized need to be reclaimed, brought back into a productive society, we need to intervene and that costs money.

a productive society is one that exists to include the citizens of the entire spectrum of wealth, not just the upper .5%.

we don't need to go back to the 19th century mindset that has a wealthy class and a serf or peasant class.

.

YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT IRAQ???


then you should know who April Glaspie is to SADDAM HUSSEIN and George H.W. BUSH..

you should also know the connection between IRAN CONTRA and IRAQ

search on John Negroponte, zmag, Honduras

then search on GARY WEBB, GEORGE H.W. Bush, Parry, and look at the Letter of Understanding with CIA and the Justice Department....it allows drug trafficking in Afghanistan by CIA people with no oversight....think a couple of keys of pure heroin could go missing???

know the connection between PNAC, AEI, JINSA, CHENEY , Douglas Feith, Richard Perle...

Search on CHENEY AND BLACKWATER... learn how the Bush STORMTROOPERS SS TROOPS are being paid for with taxpayer money...without accountability, they can murder with impunity....even if it is _REALLY_ MURDER...they have an exemption by law... maybe they could order them to purge the Democratic Hopefulls...

think they wouldnt??? then you are really kind of stupid...these people are the same ones that invested in NAZI death camps while we were at war... doubt me??? GOOD, then search on BUSH CRIME FAMILY, NAZIS...look at Prescott and Walker... they should have been imprisoned, and yet today, GEORGE W. BUSH HAS A TRUST FUND FROM AUSCWITZ SLAVE LABOR...direct lineage... anyone suing him for recovery of that money??? THEY SHOULD BE... make a great headline...

sportsmanlike behaviour???

show me a good sportsman in the EXECUTIVE BRANCH...

learn to finish with them bleeding or dont run...

.


Posted by: there | May 18, 2007 9:45 PM | Report abuse

Because Blarg went to the effort of doing some actual research, I felt obligated to do some also.

According to the President's Pay Agent (the Federal Salary Council) [see the Office of Personnel Management website at: https://www.opm.gov/oca/fsc/recommendation05.asp ]

Locality Rates for 2007

Based on calculations provided by Office of Personnel Management staff in taking a weighted average of the locality pay gaps, the overall gap between base General Schedule (GS) average salaries (excluding any add-ons such as special rates and existing locality payments) and non-Federal average salaries surveyed by BLS was 30.36 percent as of March 2005. The amount needed to reduce the pay disparity to 5 percent (the target gap) averages 24.15 percent.

We calculate the pay gaps excluding existing locality payments because locality pay is paid on top of the base General Schedule rates. The overall average pay gap in 2005, including the current average locality rate of 14.99 percent, is 13.37 percent. The calculation is (130.36/114.99-1) X 100.


That is for General Schedule Federal employees (essentially White Collar employees) which make up 72% of the Federal workforce.

I still think that MikeB is just ranting again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2007 5:45 PM | Report abuse

MikeB: I don't know where you are getting your stats, but from what I can find you are way off base. The immigration "Agreement" being reported on doesn't make sense, ie., Work here two years, leave, come back for another two years and leave again. Talk about STUPID, from the info I can find, this one takes the cake.

Posted by: lylepink | May 18, 2007 5:23 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - The Department of Labor surveys and publishes every year. The private sector pay over public sector pay for equivalent jobs gap has been there for decades.

Your original point was that public employees coopted the unions. Except for a few instances, public employees are in strictly public employee unions. If they coopted anybody, they coopted themselves.

Your're simply ranting again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

Here are some statistics on public vs. private sector wages:
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl0832.pdf

The first few pages of the report deal with this topic. The report points out that it's often hard to make a direct comparison, since some public-sector jobs (like teachers and policemen) have higher wages than private-sector jobs in the same category. Administrative support positions pay about the same either way, and managerial positions pay more in the private sector.

In general, it seems that the average private-sector employee is paid less than the average public-sector employee. That isn't what I expected, but it does make a certain amount of sense.

Posted by: Blarg | May 18, 2007 3:39 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: | May 18, 2007 01:20 PM - Unless you are looking at 25 year old numbers, this certainly isn't the case. Presently, if you do a search on the statistics for the various states, stae, county and municiple employees *average* better than 30% more pay than their private sector counterparts. Furthermore, they receive benefit packages that are 25% better than that recived by thier private sector equivalents. As a start, look at the statistics for the Western states - Oregon, Washington and California, where public employees average 50% better than private sector employees doing similar jobs.

Posted by: MikeB | May 18, 2007 3:03 PM | Report abuse

What has Ankleless Annie to say about the proposed roaming [not ROVING?] ambassador & 666-wannabe's Toronto tarrying?

Posted by: Philip V Riggio | May 18, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

What has Ankleless Annie to say about the proposed roaming [not ROVING?] ambassador & 666-wannabe's Toronto tarrying?

Posted by: Philip V Riggio | May 18, 2007 2:44 PM | Report abuse

This is exactly why Senators should not run for President. Roughly another year and a half of votes that can only damn you in the final two month's of campaigning that really count. Go Richardson!

Please explain again why the consistent leader in Democratic polling needs to appease the flower power wing of the party? Assuming you don't need them to win the primaries, and I don't see any evidence of that yet, who are they going to vote for in the general election? These aren't the type to sit home if their state will be close. And how many of them really live in battle ground states? I'm not talking about those who answer opposed in phone surveys, I mean the ones who won't shut up about her calculated vote for the war. I'm not suggesting she should vote in lockstep with the President, but she needs to chart her own course and not one that will have her braiding daisies in her hair by election time. Tacking too far left is the only thing that could lose it for the Dems assuming nothing in the macro election environment changes. Which it will of course.

Posted by: muD | May 18, 2007 1:49 PM | Report abuse

MikeB - Dept. of Labor surveys show just the opposite of what you cite with respect to public employee pay and private sector pay.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 18, 2007 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The thing that is wrong with unions is that they were coopted by public employees. Now, we have public employees making 30% or more than their private sector counterparts with benefits that no one in the private sector can even image, much less ever hope to receive. People think that unions represent working men and women, as they did up until about 1980 when they were taken over by the public employees. Now, union membership is dropping like a rock and public approval of them is likewise falling. The solution is for unions to get back to representing actual workers instead of public employee interests. THAT *can* happen. Unions haven't completely driven over the cliff. It' merely a matter of eiher isolating or giving the boot to outfits like ASCME and other public employee insults and getting unions back to the dirty work of enrolling honest to god workers.

Posted by: MikeB | May 18, 2007 12:43 PM | Report abuse

Though I beleive she is better than all the Repub candidates, Hillary has shown a lack of good judgement and foresight by coming out in support of the war early on when it made the most impact. Barack on the other hand used sound judgement and offered a very well reasoned explaination for his disapproval of the war when it mattered the most and has not waivered since. There are some wars and conflicts that we as a country must be engaged in, this was not one of them, and the information was there from the beginning. There are no excuses, Barack Obama saw the fiasco for what it was Hillary did not , enough said.

Posted by: mattmazz | May 18, 2007 12:36 PM | Report abuse

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
otherside123.blogspot.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalresearch.ca

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php?id=209

"Sicko" is Completed and We're Off to Cannes!

Friends,

It's a wrap! My new film, "Sicko," is all done and will have its world premiere this Saturday night at the Cannes Film Festival. As with "Bowling for Columbine" and "Fahrenheit 9/11," we are honored to have been chosen by this prestigious festival to screen our work there.

My intention was to keep "Sicko" under wraps and show it to virtually no one before its premiere in Cannes. That is what I have done and, as you may have noticed if you are a recipient of my infrequent Internet letters, I have been very silent about what I've been up to. In part, that's because I was working very hard to complete the film. But my silence was also because I knew that the health care industry -- an industry which makes up more than 15 percent of our GDP -- was not going to like much of what they were going to see in this movie and I thought it best not to upset them any sooner than need be.

Well, going quietly to Cannes, I guess, was not to be. For some strange reason, on May 2nd the Bush administration initiated an action against me over how I obtained some of the content they believe is in my film. As none of them have actually seen the film (or so I hope!), they decided, unlike with "Fahrenheit 9/11," not to wait until the film was out of the gate and too far down the road to begin their attack.

Bush's Treasury Secretary, Henry Paulson, launched an investigation of a trip I took to Cuba to film scenes for the movie. These scenes involve a group of 9/11 rescue workers who are suffering from illnesses obtained from working down at Ground Zero. They have received little or no help with their health care from the government. I do not want to give away what actually happens in the movie because I don't want to spoil it for you (although I'm sure you'll hear much about it after it unspools Saturday). Plus, our lawyers have advised me to say little at this point, as the film goes somewhere far scarier than "Cuba." Rest assured of one thing: no laws were broken. All I've done is violate the modern-day rule of journalism that says, "ask no questions of those in power or your luncheon privileges will be revoked."

This preemptive action taken by the Bush administration on the eve of the "Sicko" premiere in Cannes led our attorneys to fear for the safety of our film, noting that Secretary Paulson may try to claim that the content of the movie was obtained through a violation of the trade embargo that our country has against Cuba and the travel laws that prohibit average citizens of our free country from traveling to Cuba. (The law does not prohibit anyone from exercising their first amendment right of a free press and documentaries are protected works of journalism.)

I was floored when our lawyers told me this. "Are you saying they might actually confiscate our movie?" "Yes," was the answer. "These days, anything is possible. Even if there is just a 20 percent chance the government would seize our movie before Cannes, does anyone want to take that risk?"

Certainly not. So there we were last week, spiriting a duplicate master negative out of the country just so no one from the government would take it from us. (Seriously, I can't believe I just typed those words! Did I mention that I'm an American, and this is America and NO ONE should ever have to say they had to do such a thing?)

I mean, folks, I have just about had it. Investigating ME because I'm trying to help some 9/11 rescue workers our government has abandoned? Once again, up is down and black is white. There are only two people in need of an investigation and a trial, and the desire for this across America is so widespread you don't even need to see the one's smirk or hear the other's sneer to know who I am talking about.

But no, I'm the one who now has to hire lawyers and sneak my documentary out of the country just so people can see a friggin' movie. I mean, it's just a movie! What on earth could I have placed on celluloid that would require such a nonsensical action against me?

Ok. Scratch that.

Well, I'm on my way to Cannes right now, a copy of the movie in my bag. Don't feel too bad for me, I'll be in the south of France for a week! But then it's back to the U.S. for a number of premieres and benefits and then, finally, a chance for all of you to see this film that I have made. Circle June 29th on your calendar because that's when it opens in theaters everywhere across the country and Canada (for the rest of the world, it opens in the fall).

I can't wait for you to see it.

Yours,

Michael Moore

P.S. I will write more about what happens from Cannes. Stay tuned on my website, MichaelMoore.com.

Posted by: che | May 18, 2007 4:33 AM | Report abuse

The atmosphere on Mars is over 90 percent CO2.-- Doesn't seem to bother the Martians.

Posted by: Bill MacLeod | May 18, 2007 2:48 AM | Report abuse

I think that Clinton's slight equivocation will most likely go unnoticed in this mess of candidates. Whether or not Clinton is sticking to her word and supporting this legislation will not be an issue. Hello! Senators change their minds in voting all the time. Everyone knows, though, that in the end, Clinton will vote in support. Even with little attention to her wavering on the legislation, Clinton will vote for it to prevent any further talk about her. Any comments she made concerning her vote for the bill will become a small blip on the radar.

Posted by: A Fry | May 18, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

I think that Clinton's slight equivocation will most likely go unnoticed in this mess of candidates. Whether or not Clinton is sticking to her word and supporting this legislation will not be an issue. Hello! Senators change their minds in voting all the time. Everyone knows, though, that in the end, Clinton will vote in support. Even with little attention to her wavering on the legislation, Clinton will vote for it to prevent any further talk about her. Any comments she made concerning her vote for the bill will become a small blip on the radar.

Posted by: A Fry | May 18, 2007 12:38 AM | Report abuse

It's very clear that Sen. Hillary is not being honest about her Iraq position. The commercials will be coming soon (hopefully) showing her initial announcement in support of the Iraq resolution, her continued remarks regarding support for the war in the two years following it's commencement, her beginning retreat when the war started to head south, and her continued efforts to speak out of both sides of her mouth depending upon her audience.

I believe Sen. Hillary doesn't know what the right thing is to say because she relies so heavily on her advisors to tell her. She's not thinking for herself. She's a rote learner. She's trying to remember the words and positions Penn poll-tested for her. There's no substance with Sen. Hillary. It's all surface. When you peel back the outer layer you see there's nothing there.

Is anyone really fooled by her pairing with Sen. Robert Byrd to revoke the Iraq war authorization? Sen. Hillary knows it doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of passing and most of us know it as well. Sen. Hillary knows revoking an authorization for war is unconstitutional. She's not going to get any credit for that.

Sen. Hillary supported the Feingold bill because she believed she had to since Obama announced his support for it. Sen. Hillary and Bill Clinton continue to "try" to draw comparisons between her Iraq positions and Obama's Iraq position as if there were a comparison.

I think the criticism regarding Sen. Hillary's Iraq vote has subsided because Sen. Hillary has made it clear she has no intention of explaining her vote or apologizing for her vote. Sen. Hillary told us all if we don't like her Iraq vote then we can vote for someone else. We accept her offer and we're waiting for the opportunity to vote for someone else. There's not much else to say before then.

Sen. Hillary has flipped and flopped and flipped and flopped and flipped and flopped and flipped and flopped!


Posted by: Concerned Voter | May 17, 2007 9:37 PM | Report abuse

Razor

It goes well beyond that - US Big 3 management, especially at GM, was so myopic and so constitutionally unable to adapt that it was ludicrous. Toyota took over a GM plant in Fremont, California in a joint venture to produce Corollas and Novas. This plant was notorious for bad labor relations, absenteeism, poor quality - you name it. Under Toyota management, with the same UAW work force, it became the most efficient plant in North American producing GM cars. Toyota had something like 1/3 the number of levels of management between the factory floor and the CEO as GM. Do not tell me that labor unions are the main problem. I have studied this quite a bit and management deserves at least 75% of the blame for their problems. Look at the short sighted penny-wise dollar foolish decisions the Big 3 have made - not putting the $25 stabilizer bar on the Corvair (read Unsafe at any Speed) or the financial analysis of the Ford Pinto exploding gas tank.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 17, 2007 9:15 PM | Report abuse

JimD in FL, I agree that within the context of company operations, only management is ever to blame. They get paid the big bucks, they are responsible for whatever goes wrong.

In the political context a union's effort can be harmful. In 20/20 hindsight, the 2 million plus cap in vehicle imports pushed for by unions might have been a bad idea, because it pushed the Japanese into a market (mid sized cars) that US companies dominated.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 8:41 PM | Report abuse

Political leaders shouldn't cower to pressure when a thought-out decision is needed. I think it would be a mistake to just leave Iraq without enforcing a plan and some measures that would ensure that Iraq does not implode. The only answer to the Iraqi and Middle-eastern problems is a multi-national economic one where Iraq can be rebuilt and thrive in the future.

According to the Borgen Project, $340 billion has already been spent in Iraq and we have a $522 billion military budget. What has resulted from that money? The money would be better spent on plans such as the UN Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty. Just $19 billion annually can end starvation and malnutrition. Issues such as poverty foster a lot of the tensions that exist in the world today. As leaders in this world, we really need to get behind peaceful growth and development in the world.

Posted by: anna k | May 17, 2007 8:16 PM | Report abuse

Razor

The unions were a minor voice in that crowd = the big 3 management thought they had a winner. As dysfunctional as the unions have been over the last 30 years in terms of competitiveness, they are lean, mean competitive machines compared to the management of the Big 3 - especially GM. Having made a major study of this when I got my MBA 20 years ago, I do know something about the subject.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 17, 2007 7:43 PM | Report abuse

I agree that "However, I'm not sure we would like the impact on the entire Middle East if we just pulled out and left a vacuum." I agree we need a presense in the region, just not in Iraq.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Razor - In Vietnam we tried to install our style Democracy; and kept deluding ourselves that it would work with each "free election."

The Vietnamese didn't give a damn about our style of Democracy.

I won't say that Cambodia was inevitable, because if we had faced facts sooner in Vietnam, Pol Pot may never have had the opportunity.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 6:45 PM | Report abuse

judge - i'd really like "?????" to be "cheney" - but i'll settle for rove. without him in there, the bush administration will lose its evil genius and once again become a bunch of aging frat boys and condi... which is not ideal, but a significant improvement.

Posted by: meuphys | May 17, 2007 6:40 PM | Report abuse

The unions have in fact hurt more workers than they have helped for the past 30 years or so. Any stat available shows this to be fact.

Posted by: lylepink | May 17, 2007 6:39 PM | Report abuse

Someone said:

Give the man a cigar!

HogBoy, that's exactly what the problem has been so many times with U. S. foreign policy.

So many times? Not hardly. Only once, in Iraq. In Vietman, more people died in SE asia in the 5 years after we left than in the 25 years that we were there. (Pol pot, etc.) That is what we were trying to prevent.

Vietnam is only beginning to do what India, China, Israel, Chile, S. Korea, Eastern Europe, etc have done: Embrace the power of market economics.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 6:35 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 17, 2007 6:31 PM | Report abuse

Razorback, I doubt that they "don't want liberty," but I agree that they don't want the Western way of life forced on them. I also agree that it does us no good to continue to try. And you're right in saying that we should get out from between the 2 sides of a civil war.

However, I'm not sure we would like the impact on the entire Middle East if we just pulled out and left a vacuum. Who if anyone do you see as our replacement? Al Sadr wants a Shiite state allied with Iran. The current (Shi'ite) Iraqi government just wants to survive from day to day. Iran wants to annex Iraq. The Kurds want independence. The Sunnis want to bring back the Ba'ath Party. And the average Iraqi now blames us for the stuff they used to blame on Saddam.

Can't wait 'til we invade Iran...

Posted by: Bokonon | May 17, 2007 6:26 PM | Report abuse

MikeB, when will you figure out that the liberals always throw the union guys under the bus? You didn't see that coming? The liberals want to give the illegals social security too.

Union guys should hate environmentalists.

Remember when the Japanese had the small car market, and US unions made the midsize cars and the trucks?

Then unfortunately, the UNIONs put a per unit import limit. So the Japanese reasoned that if we can only import 2 million cars, lets make them expensive ones. Infinity, Lexus, and Acura were born. So now, the Japanese yeilded gave up part of the small cars to the Koreans, and competed with US in midsize. Also, they started building non union cars in the US.

Then, mileage requirements were applied to cars but not trucks, so a car that looks like a truck (SUV) was invented, yes by environmentalists.

So now, US dominated the truck and SUV market, midsize was competitive, and Japan and Korea had small cars.

When oil went up the SUV went down, ford and gm went in the toiled, and the unions took another hit.

MikeB,unions are told to go to the back of the bus by libs. Get used to it.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 6:25 PM | Report abuse

Give the man a cigar!

HogBoy, that's exactly what the problem has been so many times with U. S. foreign policy.

We think that the rest of the World automatically wants a U. S. style Democracy, because it works for us. T'aint necessarily so! It wasn't in Vietnam, and may not be in Iraq.

We always presume that "they" will want whatever we have.

The Iraqis may have to go through all sorts of political and cultural convulsions before they do know what they want.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 6:22 PM | Report abuse

FLASH: Wolfowitz will resign from the World Bank.

Posted by: Loudoun Voter | May 17, 2007 6:21 PM | Report abuse

The biggest problem with Biden (and Thompson's plan) is this problem isn't about figuring out what we want, or what we think is rational, or what we think that they want.

Who in Iraq will step up and say what Iraq wants.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 6:15 PM | Report abuse

I think the Biden plan is the worst possibe one, except for every other one that has been tried or put forward (to paraphrase Churchill on democracy). Yes, the Turks would not like it but we need to be firm with them. Yes, it is possible that Iraq would split apart. Iraq is not a natural nation - its borders were cobbled together in the British Colonial Office after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. However, it is imperative to give each major group in Iraq a stake in a peaceable future. I see no better option than a loose federation giving each major faction a piece of the action.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 17, 2007 6:12 PM | Report abuse

Bokonon - Trotsky is just Zouk using another name.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

I will only sacrifice their liberty when convinced that THEY don't want liberty.

I agree we are the good guys who go around freeing people. It worked in WW1, WW2 and the cold war. It worked Japan, S. Korea, eastern Europe, and other places. It is difficult for me to conclude that the Iraqis want freedom. We are trying to put the Shiites in charge, but they kill us. We put al Sadr's people in the government, but they kill us. They are irrational violent fanatics.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 6:09 PM | Report abuse

Trotsky - I respond to real questions, intelligently phrased, when I see them. To date, I have seen none from you - only name-calling. If you would care to respectfully offer something other than a platitude, insult, or talking point, I would be happy to respond. In doing so, however, you would have to be willing for I and others not to agree with your preconceived ideas.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 17, 2007 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Hillary has a bigger problem than Iraq now. She just voted to grant the 20 million or so illegals amnesty and immediate work permits. With the U.S. entering a recession, I don't think working class men and women are going to be overjoyed about supporting a political hack that sides with businesses, using these millions of new workers in a race to the bottom for wages and benefits. Clinton, and the Democratic Party, just created their own Iraq and it's going to cost them even more than Bush's mistake. We now need a third party in this country, where we don't have to choose between the "lessor of two evils"...these twin collections of blathering gasbags and thoughtless clods.

Posted by: MikeB | May 17, 2007 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Biden's plan is been rational and coherent. But there's two Jokers in the deck.

1) It essentially calls for partitioning. Can a Kurd/Sunni/Shiite Federation actually stay together? Partitioning almost always involves Reunification sometime in the future. The Kurdish area may have enough cultural and geographic differences from the other two that it just might stay separate. But, the Sunnis and the Shiites are just too close together, to not fight over perceived "losses" to the other group.

and,

2) What do our Allies the Turks do if the Kurds get their own area of Northern Iraq? Would the Iranians be any less happy than the Turks?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 6:00 PM | Report abuse

bokonon - I see you are from the " we don't debate with real questions" wing of the party. good luck with that. Cowardice and surrender are becoming the label for your party quickly enough. I see you are on board with that. but I must agree with you, it is best to just stay away from hard questions with the answers you have.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 17, 2007 5:58 PM | Report abuse

"Yer honor, yer close, but not quite there. What we need to do is get the algae to start eatin' up all that CO2, see, and they'll not only toss O2 back into the water & atmosphere, they'll trap carbon, which will sink to the ocean floor in their lifeless bodies, which we can then harvest as oil in 2 or 3 million years."

Brilliant, bsimon! And we can convert it back to CO2 again by burning the oil. The yin and yang of it is deeply moving. I feel a song coming on: "It's the Circle of Life..." oops, make that "It's the Circle of Geology..." but that's not quite as catchy. We'll have to work on that and come up with something snappier for the presidential campaign of 2228. Our candidate will back suspended animation for everyone while the planet recovers from CO2 overload.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 17, 2007 5:56 PM | Report abuse

Razorback: our positions may be closer than you think. Yes, the civil war will worsen if our soldiers are off the streets of Iraq, where their daily sorties allow them to be nothing more than targets for any nut with a weapon, while the Iraqi military sits back and watches (or actively helps). But without our military presence the government will fall immediately, to be replaced by Iranian puppets and Sadrist fascists.

However, I absolutely reject your assertion that it is "reasonable to assume that the Iraqis do not want democracy, pluralism and the other things we think they would be better off with". These people have been through decades of the worst hell any of us could imagine, and deserve our best wishes, support and sympathy. They have only recieved our incompetence and corruption. Pulling out would only confirm our national weakness and stupidity.

Finally, it is important to differentiate between Iraq and Kurdistan. The Kurds may be our best friends in the region. We absolutely cannot abandon them, or give up access to this solid foothold in this dangerous area.

Posted by: windserf (elan melamid) | May 17, 2007 5:54 PM | Report abuse

Razor

Sadaam was a very bad guy, but I do not think it was right to take him out when we did not have a coherent, rational, workable plan for the post-Sadaam era. That is why Bush I stopped the first Gulf War when he did.

As for handing off the nation building to someone else, we would have had to had established a diplomatic coalition that was on board with what we were doing in the first place. Bush I was masterful at this, Bush II acted as if even thinking about assembling a diplomatic coalition would make him a "girlie man".

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 17, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Razorback - my guess is that Hillary will feel compelled to admit her vote was a mistake, probably as the primaries come closer. Bush never will, and why should he? He's not running for anything, just playing army for another year and 1/2. And in re: "dodge, calculate and calibrate every issue" - doesn't every politician do that?

and in re: "Does this mean they have joined the big oil bush hitler lieberman cheney corporate media conspiracy?" - no, that means that they represent districts which don't see this in black and white terms.

bsimon, don't give Trotsky the satisfaction of a response. And don't feed him, and keep your hands and feet away from his cage.

JimD - you say "We cannot leave the country in chaos," but you also say "The vast majority of the violence in Iraq is due to Sunni-Shia conflict or nationalist resentment of US occupation." So the occupation is provoking the violence, yet we shouldn't leave? (maybe I agree with you, just not sure what you're saying. And I like Joe Biden too, but sadly, he's his own worst enemy.)

Razorback, I agree that we can't / shouldn't police a civil war. However, I also think that we can't get totally out yet... as a conservative, I would guess that you don't like the UN. I agree that it has its faults, but what other organization exists that could take the heat if we pull out? Having stirred things up, I don't know if we can leave without someone going in as a replacement. How I wish we had never stirred things up in the 1st place...

and Golgi, I too would like to see the discussion on Obama from last week. He impresses me more and more.

Posted by: Bokonon | May 17, 2007 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Razor - you think? what are you a Lib now? what are your feelings about the millions who walked miles to the voting booth? we are not talking about most of the middle east. By definition, Iraq is the first domino in line. will you sacrifice their liberty; to what principle? we, the good guys, always go around the world freeing people. why stop now?

Bush, McCain and Kennedy to the 12 million illegals - Welcome.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 17, 2007 5:48 PM | Report abuse

Gingrich Slams Current Election Politics
By Mike Baker 05/17/07 (AP)

RALEIGH, N.C. - Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says the 2008 White House candidates are "demeaning the presidency" by focusing on the race rather than ideas.

"We have shrunk our political process to this pathetic dance in which people spend an entire year raising money in order to offer nonanswers, so they can memorize what their consultants and focus groups said would work," Gingrich said.

Gotta agree with The Speaker on this!

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 5:40 PM | Report abuse

JimD writes
"As for the Democratic presidential contenders, one has, indeed, put forth a comprehensive and rational plan for dealing with Iraq and that is Senator Joe Biden."

yeah, I thought about noting that in my original comment, but decided to ignore his proposal, since everyone else has for the two years that he's been pushing it. Though frankly, it might be the next idea worth trying, once its clear the surge isn't working.

Posted by: bsimon | May 17, 2007 5:39 PM | Report abuse

Roo, do you believe we should stay until its fixed?

Trotsky, I don't think "nuts" are in the minority in Iraq. I think they are the overwhelming majority. I think if you had a free fair election in most of the middle east the violent religious fanatics would win.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Razor according to your logic we should cede the ground to a minority of nuts. do you suggest we do this at home too? what about the other 80-90% of the population that is counting on someone with a spine appearing.

Posted by: Trotsky | May 17, 2007 5:31 PM | Report abuse

Razorback--"We "owned it" up until the time it bacame reasonable to assume that the Iraqis do not want democracy, pluralism and the other things we think they would be better off with."

"We owned it until it became reasonable to assume that the pieces of china would not reconstitute into a vase."

Posted by: roo | May 17, 2007 5:29 PM | Report abuse

JimDinFL:

I think we were right to go in to get rid of Saddam. I think the day after we pulled down the statute, we should have asked the UN and the Arab League to come in, because our business was done.

We should have left the nation building to someone else.

I think Biden and Tommy Thompson have reasonable things to say about the future of Iraq, but the conduct of Iraquis tells me that what they really want (or just defer to)is violent regligious fanatisism. No plan can deal with that.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 5:27 PM | Report abuse

JimD in FL - We can most certainly leave and the sooner the better. There is flat out nothing we can do in Iraq that will improve the mess we made. The sooner we pack up and leave, the sooner the normal social forces at work there will run their course. Eiher another strong man, another Saddam Hussein, will take over and brutally and efficiently put a stop to the several civil wars there and impose peace of a sort, or the country will simply fall apart and be absorbed by it's neighbors. In a study released today, British intelligence, pretty much outlines these two options as what will happen, regardless of how long we stay, how much money and lives we sink into this mess, no matter what we do or even can do. Bush and Cheney mess up big time, but the Post the New York Times, NBC, ABC, CBS, and the rest of the American media and our Congress were all cheerleaders for it, even though they were misled. Now, however, the egg has broke and there is no putting it back together. Get out.

Posted by: MikeB | May 17, 2007 5:26 PM | Report abuse

The best post today was asking to define "Going Nowhere". Brilliant, in that someone could even pretent to be that stupid, I almost wet my pants laughing.

Posted by: lylepink | May 17, 2007 5:24 PM | Report abuse

The war in Iraq is a strategic blunder of cosmic proportions. It represents the triumph of ideology over empiricism. Think of all the incredibly stupid statements emanating from the Bush administration about it - the war would be financed through Iraqi oil revenues, the people would welcome us with open arms so we do not need much of an occupation force (never mind the prescient warning from the Army Chief of Staff, what does he know). The lack of realistic planning, the staffing of the occupation authority with ideological true believers who did not have even mminimal qualifications for the positions they held (rather like Brownie at FEMA) - all these things truly boggle the mind.

BUT --- setting a date certain for withdrawal would be almost as stupid as the invasion was in the first place. We cannot leave the country in chaos. I do believe that we should re-deploy our troops and stop trying to police a civil war. We should concentrate on training the Iraqis and pushing for a political settlement. The vast majority of the violence in Iraq is due to Sunni-Shia conflict or nationalist resentment of US occupation. The true jihadist element is a very minor part of the problem according to all reports I have seen that cite military commanders or intelligence estimates.

As for the Democratic presidential contenders, one has, indeed, put forth a comprehensive and rational plan for dealing with Iraq and that is Senator Joe Biden.

Posted by: JimD in FL | May 17, 2007 5:13 PM | Report abuse

windserf (elan melamid)says:

"Hillary holds exactly the proper position on Iraq: we should immediately rescind the overbroad and ill-defined war powers granted to the President in 2002, but we must also recognize that an active military and diplomatic presence will be required in Iraq for years to come."

and also "Colin Powell was right: we broke Iraq, and we now own it."

I disagree. How do you end the war and stay? The whole reason that I, unlike some of my fellow right wingers, want to end our participation in the war is so that these fanatics can shoot at each other without our soldiers being in the way.

We "owned it" up until the time it bacame reasonable to assume that the Iraqis do not want democracy, pluralism and the other things we think they would be better off with.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Judge C Crater writes
"Ah, but you see CO2 is good for us! Yes, that's right we need to regard the atmosphere as an infinite sink for CO2! The plants will grow faster and Antartica will have great beaches. If we really work hard and apply American ingenuity to its fullest we will have an atmosphere of pure CO2 and will things be really great then, boy howdy!"

Yer honor, yer close, but not quite there. What we need to do is get the algae to start eatin' up all that CO2, see, and they'll not only toss O2 back into the water & atmosphere, they'll trap carbon, which will sink to the ocean floor in their lifeless bodies, which we can then harvest as oil in 2 or 3 million years.

Posted by: bsimon | May 17, 2007 4:59 PM | Report abuse

'Just a few weeks ago, Gen. David Petraeus held a press conference at the Pentagon to give an update on progress in Iraq. He told the assembled reporters that he would return in September to give his assessment of the success of the surge, notes Politico's Ryan Grim.

"During Secretary Gates' recent visit to Iraq," Petraeus said, according to a transcript of the April 26 presser, "we agreed that in early September, Ambassador Ryan Crocker and I would provide an assessment of the situation in Iraq with respect to our mission and offer recommendations on the way ahead. We will be forthright in that assessment, as I believe I have been with you today."

Petraeus repeated the promise in private briefing for members and senators, and the refrain in the halls of Congress, especially for Republicans voting against any withdrawal or "redeployment" timeline, has become, "Give it till September."

But lawmakers seeking political cover from Petraeus' expected September report may now have to look elsewhere for help. The blog IraqSlogger is reporting that Petraeus tells them he won't have had enough time by September to say "anything definitive."

"Come September, I don't think we'll have anything definitive," he told reporter Jane Arraf, who is embedded with U.S. troops and working for IraqSlogger, an Iraq war blog.

Petraeus' spokesman in Iraq, Col. Steven Boylan, told The Politico in an e-mail that the comments posted in the blog were an accurate reflection of what Petraeus said and is consistent with what he's said previously about reporting on conditions in the fall.

Arraf, who is regularly CNN's chief Baghdad correspondent but is working for IraqSlogger for a month, got a sit-down interview with Petraeus on Tuesday. "Clearly they have to show that they are willing to reconcile," said Petraeus of the various Iraqi factions, "and that they can make some progress in some legislative areas to give hope to some of the people [in Congress] that perhaps could put some time on the Washington clock."

The White House referred comment to the Department of Defense, which referred comment to Boylan.'

Pass the hot potato right along....

Posted by: Jane | May 17, 2007 4:42 PM | Report abuse

Hillary holds exactly the proper position on Iraq: we should immediately rescind the overbroad and ill-defined war powers granted to the President in 2002, but we must also recognize that an active military and diplomatic presence will be required in Iraq for years to come.

Rescinding war powers will immediately reduce the risks facing our troops by pulling them off the streets of Iraq, where they are nothing more than targets for anyone in Iraq with a gun (which is everyone). Maintaining military bases both in Iraq and Kurdistan will provide the support that these tenuously democratic governments must have if they are not to become Iranian puppets and the seat of even more horrific civil violence.

Colin Powell was right: we broke Iraq, and we now own it.

Posted by: windserf (elan melamid) | May 17, 2007 4:30 PM | Report abuse

Stop me before I cut and paste again.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:22 PM | Report abuse

"The new research, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, indicates that the Southern Ocean has been saturated with carbon dioxide at least since the 1980s."

Ah, but you see CO2 is good for us! Yes, that's right we need to regard the atmosphere as an infinite sink for CO2! The plants will grow faster and Antartica will have great beaches. If we really work hard and apply American ingenuity to its fullest we will have an atmosphere of pure CO2 and will things be really great then, boy howdy!

What? We'll all suffocate? Can you PROVE that by citing a specific example of where this has happened in the past? HA! Didn't think so! Stupid crazy liberals!

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 17, 2007 4:20 PM | Report abuse

The Financial Times has published yet another fantastic article revealing new details about the relationship between Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Riza. The most important point: Their partnership is inseparable from the politics of the Iraq war.

Eoin Callan writes:

At about noon on March 21 2003, the U.S. launched the first full-scale bombing of Iraq, ordering about 1,700 sorties and firing more than 500 cruise missiles.

Sometime during that day, amid the frenzied activity at the Pentagon, an e-mail was sent with an order originating in the office of Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy secretary of defense, to hire Shaha Riza, a World Bank employee...

Mr Wolfowitz acknowledges that by the start of the Iraq war he had a "close personal relationship" with Ms Riza.

Officials said that departmental records confirm Mr Wolfowitz showed a "personal interest" in the contract to send Ms Riza and three other consultants to Iraq to advise on postwar state-building.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:16 PM | Report abuse

I guess the liberal activist representatives are not doing what they were elected to do then? either that or the polls are over amplifying their numbers. Liberal math again.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

How did MikeB figure it out? CC joined the conspiracy. That MikeB is pretty quick.

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 4:15 PM | Report abuse

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Southern Ocean around Antarctica is so loaded with carbon dioxide that it can barely absorb any more, so more of the gas will stay in the atmosphere to warm up the planet, scientists reported Thursday.

Human activity is the main culprit, said researcher Corinne Le Quere, who called the finding very alarming.

The phenomenon wasn't expected to be apparent for decades, Le Quere said in a telephone interview from the University of East Anglia in Britain.

"We thought we would be able to detect these only the second half of this century, say 2050 or so," she said. But data from 1981 through 2004 show the sink is already full of carbon dioxide. "So I find this really quite alarming."

The Southern Ocean is one of the world's biggest reservoirs of carbon, known as a carbon sink. When carbon is in a sink -- whether it's an ocean or a forest, both of which can lock up carbon dioxide -- it stays out of the atmosphere and does not contribute to global warming.

The new research, published in the latest edition of the journal Science, indicates that the Southern Ocean has been saturated with carbon dioxide at least since the 1980s.

This is significant because the Southern Ocean accounts for 15 percent of the global carbon sink, Le Quere sa

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris, you keep referring to "liberal activists", as if they were only people who oppose that awful mess that is Iraq. News flash! Three quarters of the American people oppose that war, and want us out "quickly" - more than half of the voting public wants us out *immediately*...as in RIGHT Now. SO, EITHER THERE ARE A LOT MORE "liberal activists" THAN I THOUGHT, OR YOUR BIAS IS SHOWING.....

Posted by: MikeB | May 17, 2007 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Scroll up to

Posted by: prisonplanet.com | May 17, 2007 03:54 PM

Posted by: Curiosity Killer | May 17, 2007 4:10 PM | Report abuse

That's a tough one, HogBoy.

George W. and Hillary are both cut from the same cloth when it comes to pig headedness.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:08 PM | Report abuse

"bsimon, why do you think they didn't go on fox."

I neither know nor care.

Posted by: bsimon | May 17, 2007 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Curosity Killer - If you're going to post something like that, please provide some references or links to information on it.

Otherwise you appear to be just another Conspiracy Nut.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:06 PM | Report abuse

Who will be first to admit the mistake? Bush for going to war or Hillary for voting for it?

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 4:04 PM | Report abuse

bsimon, why do you think they didn't go on fox. How could they answer that with no answer ready?

Posted by: Trotsky | May 17, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"the white male power structure is suddenly being faced with viable female and black candidates causes the media to react with greater scrutiny, doubt, and focus on petty things that otherwise would get passed over"

Petty things like voting for a war which has taken the lives of over 3,000 G.I.'s so far, and being unable to admit that it was a mistake?

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"Watch the 80 minute video in which LBJ's former mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown, exposes Johnson's role in formulating the plot to kill JFK."

Posted by: Curiosity Killer | May 17, 2007 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink speaks TRUTH. Try it, you may like it.

Posted by: lylepink | May 17, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

David - You can be awarded a Bronze Star for service; it doesn't have to be for heroism.

Hunter is a one-trick pony, and Defense is his only trick. It won't take him very far.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:58 PM | Report abuse

As far as I can tell, neither Senator Clinton nor any of her competition for the Democratic nomination for President have offered a plausible plan for solving the Iraq problem. Waffling over whether they'll vote for or against various imaginary bills is irrelevant. As candidates for President, they should be telling us what they would do if they were President now.

Posted by: bsimon | May 17, 2007 3:56 PM | Report abuse

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/170507banronpaul.htm

Neo-Con Republican Party Hijackers Seek To Ban Ron Paul
Anti-American trash want to end democratic process, kick Texas Congressman out of debates
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, May 17, 2007

Hijackers who have seized control of the Republican party are engaged in desperate damage control in an attempt to prevent real conservatives from reclaiming the party and are circling the wagons by calling for an end to the democratic process and for Ron Paul to be kicked out of the debates.

Fox News led the charge via their rigged and bias smear attempt against the Texas Congressman during the debate and its aftermath.

GOPAC chairman Michael Steele went so far as to suggest that Ron Paul should not belong to the Republican party, stating that he was "done" with Paul and did not care what the results of the FOX poll were, after it was revealed that Paul was leading the pack.

John Gibson and Michele Malkin parroted calls for Paul to be removed from the debates during a Big Story segment last night.


Now the chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, Saul Anuzis, is circulating a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates.

"The chairman of the Michigan Republican Party said Wednesday that he will try to bar Ron Paul from future GOP presidential debates because of remarks the Texas congressman made that suggested the Sept. 11 attacks were the fault of U.S. foreign policy," reports the Associated Press.


Saul Anuzis: Enemy of the democratic process wants to ban Ron Paul.

In response, Ron Paul supporter Dena Turner has launched an online petition to advocate Paul's participation in future debates and we urge you to sign it at http://www.petitiononline.com/RPRNC08/petition.html

The Neo-Con hijackers are having to resort to ending the democratic process simply to derail the Ron Paul juggernaut and their desperation is only going to expose their inherent fear that a real and sustained backlash against the one party system is at the door.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison Planet.tv. Watch the 80 minute video in which LBJ's former mistress, Madeleine Duncan Brown, exposes Johnson's role in formulating the plot to kill JFK. Click here to subscribe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is an orchestrated agenda underway to chill free speech and blackball the Texas Congressman despite the fact that he has won the vast majority of debate polls hands down.

The elite are scared stiff that a candidate who is not bought and paid for is generating this much interest and that the snowball is rolling and getting bigger every day. Their decision to move from ignoring him to actively smearing him has only backfired and garnered Paul the attention he might not have otherwise received.

Many people still remain defeatist and skeptical as to whether Ron Paul can actually compete for the presidency, but as we've said before, you don't have to move the rock, you just have to push it and by exposing the establishment by making them behave like the tyrants they are will only wake more people up in the long run.

Posted by: prisonplanet.com | May 17, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse


"The American people are understandably fearful about another attack like the one we sustained on Sept. 11, 2001. But it is the duty of the commander in chief to lead the country away from the grip of fear, not into its grasp." -- in today's Post, Charles C. Krulak, commandant of the Marine Corps, 1995 to 1999. Joseph P. Hoar, commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, 1991 to 1994

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:54 PM | Report abuse

' I guess you have to be a Lib to fall for that kind of math.'

All day long, every day, you post this kind of crap, zouk, like a child smearing feces on a wall. You are so sick and full of hate... no wonder you have no life.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:50 PM | Report abuse

petty things that otherwise would get passed over

you mean like paying for the military?

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink says:

"This is going nowhere and the Senate is only wasting time."

Define "going nowhere"? Does going somewhere require a bill that Bush will sign? Is that how you define progress Lylepink?

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Do not forget Hillary's vagina too. The fact that the white male power structure is suddenly being faced with viable female and black candidates causes the media to react with greater scrutiny, doubt, and focus on petty things that otherwise would get passed over

Posted by: Simon | May 17, 2007 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Max Baucus, Evan Bayh, Jeff Bingaman, Thomas Carper, Bob Casey, Kent Conrad, Byron Dorgan, Mary Landrieu, Carl Levin, Blanche Lincoln, Claire McCaskill, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jack Reed, Jay Rockefeller, Kenneth Salazar, Jon Tester and Jim Webb.

The above voted AGAINST the proposal to end the war.

Does this mean they have joined the big oil bush hitler lieberman cheney corporate media conspiracy?

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Real war heroes don't brag about it.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 17, 2007 3:40 PM | Report abuse

I know this is way off-topic but i have to ask: does anyone know why Duncan Hunter isn't playing up his military service more? From what I've read he was a Army Ranger paratrooper and earned a Bronze Star. In the debates he mentioned it once, something like, "I was in Vietnam and I didn't do much" or something like that.

Posted by: David | May 17, 2007 3:37 PM | Report abuse

There are only 2 reasons for this post, Hillary's left boob and Hillary's right boob. Why must everyone demean women only because they are women?

Posted by: drinlelette | May 17, 2007 3:33 PM | Report abuse

Stop pointing out hillary's fake outs. If she wanted to be held to her positions and create a rational policy, she would have debated on Fox. she does not. Her voters don't care about any of this anyway. they understand there are no Dem polcies. they do not want any scrutiny of Democrat politicians, that might reveal too much for the thinking voter.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 3:29 PM | Report abuse

"Does her seeming equivocation on whether she supported Reid-Feingold undo some of that progress, or is it a barely noticed blip on the radar of this presidential campaign?"

Typical voter response: "Reid-Feingold, what is that, some kinda fancy eeem-ported beer? 'Minds me of the other mornin' when I was drinkin' my third can o'bud and my neighbor's dawg com' a slinkin' roun' my porch...."

In other words, "barely noticed blip" is an overstatement.

Posted by: Judge C. Crater | May 17, 2007 3:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments section awaits my thoughts? Well, here are my thoughts: Why is the Wag the Blog about Hillary again? Last week it was about whether the French election is evidence that Hillary will lose. This week it's about whether her stance on the war means that Hillary will lose. These topics suck.

Posted by: Blarg | May 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

"a good majority of the folks want us out"

but we just can't seem to get the votes. How does that work? I guess you have to be a Lib to fall for that kind of math. Perhaps if you shout louder, someone will hear.

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Jeezus CC, do we have to talk about this again? I just don't care. It has exactly zero relevance. The point is what's going on now, what are we going to do about the albatross around our necks that is this war?

Posted by: Jane | May 17, 2007 3:15 PM | Report abuse

This is going nowhere and the Senate is only wasting time. My opinion has been from the start and remains the same. This war in Iraq has always been about Oil/Money. There is no doubt that a good majority of the folks want us out, and one only has to see that the folks in power are motivated by the almighty dollar. When I see our troops treated as nothing but a means for making more money, it makes me sick to see how the families that have lost a loved one, are proud that they gave their life for nothing that even resembles the security of our nation.

Posted by: lylepink | May 17, 2007 3:09 PM | Report abuse

How come the Wag the Blog about Obama's substance never got its followup posted?

You can see that it is not a non-issue, because kingofzouk this morning was going on about how the one key point about Obama is something about talk vs. substance.

So how come the followup never got posted on Wag the Blog?

Posted by: Golgi | May 17, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Why must Hillary (like Bill) dodge, calculate and calibrate every issue?

Why can't she just vote what she thinks is right?

Posted by: Razorback | May 17, 2007 3:06 PM | Report abuse

"I actually voted for the war before I voted against it"

- any Dem presidential candidate

Posted by: tinfoil hat squad | May 17, 2007 2:50 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Hillary will make a different Sherman-esque statement and concede that "War is hell", or at least voting about it is.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | May 17, 2007 2:48 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company