A California Welcome for Hillary Clinton.

[Tom Joad]

Code Pink http://www.codepink4peace.org/

rich folk gathered to boost their candidate, while antiwar protesters had their say.




Another protester against "puny opposition" to war:

Frederick Douglass, former slave, extraordinary speaker and writer, wrote in his Rochester newspaper the North Star, January 21, 1848, of "the present disgraceful, cruel, and iniquitous war with our sister republic. Mexico seems a doomed victim to Anglo Saxon cupidity and love of dominion." Douglass was scornful of the unwillingness of opponents of the war to take real action (even the abolitionists kept paying their taxes):

The determination of our slaveholding President to prosecute the war, and the probability of his success in wringing from the people men and money to carry it on, is made evident, rather than doubtful, by the puny opposition arrayed against him. No politician of any considerable distinction or eminence seems willing to hazard his popularity with his party ... by an open and unqualified disapprobation of the war. None seem willing to take their stand for peace at all risks; and all seem willing that the war should be carried on, in some form or other.

[keepCAblue]

1. Hurray for Code Pink! I loves ya!!! n/t

[William769]

2. It should be noted that the protesters were welcomed.

Not unlike some rallies.

[papau]

4. Hillary has protesters in lunch townhall - and DUers see what? n/t

n/t

[jannyk]

10. I heard on the teevee that 5 were 'cited'

for 'disrupting a public meeting' - so I'm not sure how welcome they were.

[Tom Joad]

3. I have no doubt Hillary will raise millions from the warlords of politics, and

in return fund the Iraq war for billions more from the taxpayers.

[mtnsnake]

5. And I have no doubt that DU'ers will continue to smear her even tho she's for peace

I love how she's painted as a warmonger by her naysayers because she realizes that it will take more than a few seconds to get all out troops home. It's not as if ANY candidate has a magic solution for bringing home our troops immediately. Hillary wants this war to drag on no more than you do and no more than any other Democrat does.

[durrrty libby]

8. " I have no doubt that DU'ers will continue to smear her even tho she's for peace"

Yes indeed. The ignorance of some must be explained by agenda,

because they......... truly .....just..can't...be..that....dumb.

[dicknbush]

9. I don't accept that she is for peace...

If she was for Peace she would be for peace that means I do not endorse support or give permission to idiots to have the option not only the option but the open ended option for preemptive war. What did she think that idiot BUSH and his criminal cohorts were going to do when you give them permission to play with guns and other peoples lives? The fact of the matter was that she did not have the courage of her convictions (I want peace???) and instead had the courage of her quest for the presidency. She did not want to be on the wrong side of history even if the process was criminal which the invasion of Iraq was. SO now she has to play the Coulda woulda shoulda game and try to blame the outcome on others who lied to her. SHE KNEW BUSH WAS A LIAR WHEN SHE GAVE HIM PERMISSION TO DO ILLEGAL THINGS IN THE NAME OF AMERICA!!!!!.
Now on the other hand we have Obama. I saw a very interesting video with Obama being interviewed in late 2002. It was an inter sting interview as the illegal invasion had not occurred and you might think that Obama would be equivocal and say just enough to cover his butt and yet still have enough to have been on board with the war. He did not do that he gave very clear and very cogent answers that basically addressed not only the option of letting the inspectors do their job in the first place but also he addressed the reality of what would happen if and when the illegal invasion took place. He also addressed how he would have voted as regards giving the idiot Bush permission to start an illegal war. He said he would not have voted for the resolution as it was way to vague and needed to be more specific in its wording. So maybe he would have voted for it eventually but not before some changes were made that did not give over the power of the congress to be involved in deciding about going to war. Watching this video has definitely given me an insight to Obama and his decision making process and I like it much better then Clintons ....YEAH BUT HE LIED TO ME SO IT WASN"T MY FAULT BS!

[oasis]

27. "...bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations

more likely, and therefore, war less likely". Hillary was duped. How many times in your life have you or someone you repect, been deceived into doing something you would not do under ordinary circumstances?

[The Magistrate]

29. You Are Appealing To Fact And Sensible Understanding, Ma'am

You cannot expect these things to feature in ideological polemic....

"They believed nothing they could not prove, and could prove everything they believed."

[fuzzyball]

30. So then according to you all of the following are criminals?

Here are the Dem YES votes for the IWR:

Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Breaux (D-LA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Miller (D-GA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Schumer (D-NY)
Torricelli (D-NJ)


Come on, get real. HRC has already stated she will end the
war as soon as it is safe and practical. Don't you care about
the lives of troops who are there? What about a possible million
massacred in a bloody civil war if our troops leave in a hurry
before the Iraqi's can handle the security?

[Clark2008]

33. The problem isn't that they voted for the IWR. The problem

is that they were either easily misled and/or simply being politically expedient.

I can forgive them their errors if they truly see it and allow them to work in the Senate to resolve it, but I don't see why I should award such behavior with a nomination for president.

[fuzzyball]

35. 78 senators were NOT wrong in 2002 based on the intelligence as

it was presented THEN. Every prominent western leader was
concerned about Saddam. You can't be accused of being wrong
if you make a decision based on what is the known data at
the time.

The way things have turned out, it is NOW obvious Saddam was
faking his WMD buildup perhaps to keep Iran at bay from
attacking a vulnerable and powerless Iraq again. Therefore
I don't see why any senator needs to apologize for the 2002 vote.
So long as they are willing to change the current course of action
which is a failed action, then I have zero qualms supporting them.

[ProudDad]

42. It was obvious at the time to the

press, people and most of the governments of the WHOLE FREAKING WORLD not to mention the international weapons inspectors that the bushies were lying.

and to me too.

The Dems didn't have a spine then and they haven't shown too much of one now either.

[ProudDad]

41. Yeah, pretty much.

They are nearly all capitalist criminals...

[Tom Joad]

11. Clinton wants to continue to fund this war, i do not.

Clinton does not call for immediate withdraw of troops. I want the troops out now... not in a few years.

Her puny (and late) opposition to the war is of little value.

[The Magistrate]

20. What Opposition To It Do You Find Of Value, Mr. Joad?

Surely, since the thing continues, and you want it stopped, even your own opposition cannot really be held of much account.

[Tom Joad]

23. I think we should demand that it be defunded. We need more than lip-service.

From someone like Hillary, who supported the IWR, we need an apology-- many, many apologies.

[The Magistrate]

24. Nonesense, Mr. Joad

You might as well demand that a million dollars in cash materialize from thin air and fall into your lap at breakfast tomorrow; indeed, the chances of that happening are marginally greater than those of what you are petulantly demanding here. Securing an end to funding operations in Iraq requires sixty votes in the Senate, and sixty votes for that are not there, and will not be there in the current session. You can yell yourself hoarse over it, even stomp your foot and wave your fists about in the air, however much you like, but that will remain the essential fact of the matter.

All expressions of Congressional opposition to the continuance of the occupation of Iraq are constrained to symbolic status by the balance of power in the Senate, and the structure of our government. Their value is not in achieving any immediate result, but in providing repeated demonstration to the people of the country that their will in the matter is being balked by Republicans, and so pressing upon them the realization that if they wish to see their will be done in this matter by their government, they had damned well better see to it there are not nearly so many Republicans in their national government next time they get to vote on its composition.

Your insistance Sen. Clinton grovel for your amusement says a good deal more about you yourself than about the actual political circustances in which she is conducting a run for the White House. Sen. Clinton has made a number of things clear in this matter: she has made it clear that if President she would speedily terminate the occupation, she has made it clear that she would not have cast that vote as she did had the facts now evident been known at the time; she has made it clear that the real fault was in the deceptions practiced by the Republican administration. This is more than adequate for the great majority of voters, both in the rank and file of the Democratic Party, and throughout the country at large. No more than this is necessary: your pleasure is quite irrelevant to the nation's political life.

[papau]

6. You posted the SFgate photo's - here's the article

At the hour long (lunch fund raiser @ $250 per seat) "town hall"-style appearance, billed as "Hillary Makes History," Clinton supporters munched on boxed lunches of sushi and salad -- organic and locally produced in accordance with the candidate's wishes, they were told -- and listened as the senator spoke in detail about her views regarding the war in Iraq, contraceptives funding, affordable housing, health care, the environment and climate change.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/23/BAGOVOA6O67.DTL&hw=code+pink&sn=002&sc=986

<snip>Clinton's appearance was briefly interrupted by protesters from Code Pink, the anti-war group, who rose from various points in the audience and raised six large pink banners with slogans that included, "We Want a Peace President," and, "Hillary Stop the War Fund." Five members of the group were escorted from the room by security and arrested by police, according to Medea Benjamin, who heads the grassroots organization.

Clinton did not directly acknowledge the protesters -- some of whom yelled "stop the war" as they were lead away -- but said to cheers, "yes, we do have to end the war in Iraq.''

Some Democrats have questioned the senator about her October 2002 vote giving President Bush the authority to use military action against Iraq. While Clinton has said she wouldn't vote that same way knowing now what she didn't know then, she has been criticized for refusing to simply label the vote a mistake.

In her remarks, Clinton noted "a great deal of unrest and anger and deep, deep, frustration" on Iraq and said it's time "to begin to reign this president in'' regarding U.S. involvement in the war.<snip>

Ellen Malcolm, who heads Emily's List, the powerful Democratic pro-choice women's political action committee -- one of the hosts of the event -- said Democrats "need to focus on the big picture, and that's the general election.''<snip>

The senator also was defended by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who said in an interview published today with Politico.com that "people are too tied down with analyzing" whether Clinton says her vote to authorize the Iraq war was a mistake.

"Is that what makes the country operate well, if she becomes president?" Schwarzenegger asked. "How you twist that or spin that? We should look at what has she done as senator. What has Barack Obama done as a U.S. senator or senator. What has Rudy Giuliani done? What has (Arizona GOP Sen. John) McCain done? You've got to judge people not by this one little thing."

[MethuenProgressive]

7. "yes, we do have to end the war in Iraq.'' - HRC

Too bad that's not anti-war enough for some people:shrug:

[Tom Joad]

12. No, its not. *When* is the big question.

Will she vote to de -fund this war? Does she support an immediate withdraw of troops that will bring them back in a few months?

Or does she support a "win" in Iraq?

Bush also says he is anxious for the war to end... and that's not "antiwar enough" for me either.

[papau]

15. If you have 59 Senators she'll be the 60th to get de-fund passed - until then the question is

a waste of energy. Last I looked even in the house - where our majority control is a bit stronger than one vote - a Lieberman vote - the odds of a de-fund bill passing were near zero.

She has not ever described what a "win" is that she might want. Whatever the situation is on 1/20/09 when the next president takes power, if that president is Hillary and the US is still in the middle of a civil war - she ends that involvement - and most likely - and she has not said this - leaves perhaps 6,000 troops doing training of Iraqi's if there is an Iraq government and police/military worth the effort to train. I believe most folks expect a small force to remain - just as we have in other countries where we do not do combat - just train folks.

[Tom Joad]

17. Opposing the war funding is a waste of energy?

And you think US military involvement should continue beyond 2009?

I think most of us respectfully disagree. Or just plain disagree.

[papau]

18. no -opposing the funding is what we all do - but it is not an achievable goal in next 18 months - so

why not try to achieve something rather than an making a point?

[SOS]

19. Make it illegal

Defunding could be the better second move.
It is interesting to note that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution was repealed in 1971.
This essentially made Vietnam an illegal war. Nixon continued on under the guise of "constitutional Presidential authority".
The war was defunded later.
This might be the way to go.
It would give the yes-voters a chance to reconsider their vote. This could only help Democrats in 2008.
The war would officially become the responsibility of Bush...and only Bush.
Since Shrub loves his executive authority so much, let him take his party into 2008 on his unpopular abuse of that power.

Defunding is another strategy, but even if defunded there's enough fat in the DoD budget to keep Bush's disaster going until 1/09.
Bush is going to run out his clock on the war.
If a Democratic Congress repealed the IWR, the Democrats would be in an even better position in 2008.

Then in early 2009, with a Democratic White House and Congress, our country can begin to recover from Bush's catastrophic presidency and leave Iraq.

[The Magistrate]

21. No Democrat Elected In '08, Mr. Joad, Will Continue The Occupation Of Iraq

And the votes to end it decisively do not exist in the Senate. You are complaining that what is impossible to do is not being done. People who do that cannot expect to be taken seriously; most will take it as mere posturing, and discount accordingly.

[dicknbush]

13. I guess another way of looking at her vote to allow an idiot...

to override the congress and participate in preemptive war is this:


What's worse that she knew he was lying and voted to let him have the power or...

She didn't know he was lying and gave him the power to go to war??


(Apologies to Idiot in chief for stealing his absurdest thinking process)

[Tom Joad]

14. Maybe the congrespeople who voted for IWR should say they are entering rehab.

[papau]

16. The reverse is true - as 1st lady she knew the CIA's Iraq trying for WMD reports did exist - but

during Bill's term they were not deemed credible.

Now she is told that they are credible.

She has more reason that others to therefor vote yea

At that point in time everyone assumed he told the truth - Obama and others wanted Bush to negotiate without his having a threat of war to hold over Saddam's head - it was not that they were saying Bush was a liar.

[Vidar]

22. Applauding CodePink.

[The Magistrate]

25. Doubtless, Sir, If the Group Looked About Carefully

They would be able to find some Republicans to heckle and picket....

That is where all fire should be concentrated.

[Tom Joad]

26. You evidently don't know shit about codepink.

They have repeatedly protested Republicans. but they are an anti-war group, not party hacks.

[The Magistrate]

28. The Group Is Well Known To Me, Mr. Joad

And if they seriously wish to advance their cause, they would do well to concentrate their fire on the Republican administration that conceived, planned and executed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and the Republican officials who sustain it. Attacks on DEmocratic Party figures only muddy the waters, and thus assist the promotors of the war. Poor aim on the left is an old story, Sir: there is nothing new about this, and every instance of it helps the right and hurts the left.

[Vidar]

31. Some Democrats just look too Republican. Code Pink's

"confusion" is understandable.

[The Magistrate]

32. Bad Aim, Sir, Is Inexcuseable

Persons who are capable of confusing Sen. Clinton with a Republican have no business applying themselves to political life.

[bling bling]

34. Amen. n/t

[Tom Joad]

36. 40 years ago this april, Martin Luther King took good aim... and

it was "liberals" and the "good" people of the Democratic Party who trashed him for it. The Party cops of that time howled with indignation.
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/45a/058.html "a time to break the silence" His speech on the Vietnam war.
King was right.
the Party apologists, in my view, were wrong.

[The Magistrate]

37. Cute, Mr. Joad, But No Cigar

The period of the Civil Rights movement was quite different from conditions today. Opposition to and support for Jim Crow laws did not divide along party lines, but on regional ones. Regardless of party affiliation, Representatives and Senators from the old Federal Union opposed them, and those from the old Confederacy supported them, with the upper tier of the Plains breaking to the Federals and the southwest tending towars the secesh. The conflict broke and re-arranged the constituent elements of the two parties, so that those southern elements of the Democratic Party joined to the Republicans, and the northern progressive elements of the Republican party largely shifted over to the Democrats.

War in Viet Nam was a policy of Democratic political leaders, and conducted at a time when Democratic Party dominance of the National government was taken for granted as the normal state of affairs, the Presidency of Gen. Eisenhower being seen as a mere interregnum owing to the personal quialities of that man. As in the matter of the civil rights crusade, opposition to and disquiet with the war did not divide cleanly on party lines, or even on left and right lines. This, again, is far from the case today. Today, in the question of the occupation of Iraq, the left and the center stand against the occupation, and the right stands for it, with the two parties being arrayed in similar manner, with only occassional outliers to disturb the clarity, and these do not include any major mainstream figures on either side.

Because they are contrary to fact to the point of impudence, all your attempts to portray Democratic Party leaders as interchangeable with Republicans on the question of Iraq are doomed to fall flat and fail. All they succeed in doing is revealing that you have no interest in driving the most reactionary elements of the right from our national government, and indeed, have no real interest in bringing the disasterous policy in force in Iraq today to a halt. It is of much too great a value to you as a propaganda point on which to peg your opposition to the mainstream figures of the Democratic Party, through distortions of the record and blurring of the facts, for you to seriously want the thing halted in the foreseeable future.

Careerism is not an affliction unique to mainstream politicians: it affects committed radical sorts as well. No one wants to do themselves out of a cushy niche, after all.

[Tom Joad]

38. Not interested in your tiny cigars.

[The Magistrate]

39. What An Odd Thing To Say, Mr. Joad

"Your sister gave me diamonds; I gave them to your wife."

[DancingBear]

40. Perhaps he has no interest in choosing the "least worst" scenario,

a choice which is, of course, no choice at all.

Perhaps he, and not you, understands what needs to be done.

Your workmanlike efforts to portray politics as usual as a way out of the morass are pitiful at best, and no amount of wordplay will change it.

Could you let us know in advance what your rationale for the Democrats caving on Iran will be? Mr. Obama has already started that ball rolling (and what a courageous speech he made in Austin! - focus grouped to the nth degree and as safe as oatmeal, I am sure). How will you spin their votes to maintain the current levels of military spending in Iraq? Did you catch the Blue Dog Democrats recently, harping the "support the troops" mantra as if they were one in the same with the other side?

Play in the political cesspool all you wish, but do not be surprised when many of us opt for clean clothes, even if it takes years to get them.

One should not call out others for poor hygiene when one reeks of manure.

[The Magistrate]

43. In That Case, Mr. Bear

The gentleman would be best advised to seek his seat in Heaven quickly, for he is clearly beyond this earth here below already, and unsuited to its material nature. Here there is just about nothing but bad and worse: occassional indifference is about the best it ever gets. And down the years of history no attempts to institute the good on any wide scale have achieved anything, and more often than not have been signal for episodes of massacre by the well-meaning, who often prove very good and thorough at it. We are refractory creatues in a refractory place, and that is not going to change.

Clean clothes, as you put it, are an option only for spectators, only for that peculiar class of dilletantes who imagine the world to be a sort of moral jungle gym erected so they can display upon it their moral perfection, and their material impotence, for the benefit of an admiring crowd existing only within their own skulls. Make no mistake, Mr. Bear, the one and the other always coexist: the final proof of the perfection of the philosopher's god was that interaction by it with matter was impossible to its spiritual purity, and thus, it existed as surely as it did not matter a tinker's damn if it existed or not. The ideologically pure and uncompromising radical is in a similar position in an electoral system such as our's....

"Don't make no waves, don't back no losers."

"Saints should be judged guilty till proved innocent."