Hillary Supporters Just Don't Get It!

[IndieLeft]

That, or they just don't want to.

They keep saying that Obama supported funding the war, and that makes him just as accountable as Clinton.

WRONG! If Hillary, and the other cowards in the House and Senate had not voted to go to war, There would be NO NEED to fund the war in the first place.

Voting to pay for a war is NOT the same as voting to start a war.

With the way Bush is, does anyone out there doubt that if congress had de-funded the war, he would have just used the money already in the pipeline to continue the war anyway?

He would have let the money run out, and then blamed the Democrats for abandoning the troops. How would that have sat with the American people? We wouldn't have a shot at another Dem president for 20 more years.

Also, Hillary called Bush a dope. Then Hillary said she got duped by Bush into voting for the war.

So... She got duped by a dope, and wants to be president?
She has shown extremely poor judgment, and no credibility! If DUBYA can trick her, how is she going to do with the likes in Iran, Syria....

At least Obama had the foresight to see what was coming and try to stop it. At least he recognized the lack of character of the current president, and understood what the consequences would have been to de-fund the war.

So please, spare me the "he's just as bad" rhetoric. If she hadn't screwed up in the first place and voted for the war, he wouldn't have to to try to clean up after her.

[HeraldSquare212]

1. "I made a mess and you won't clean it up - you're the bad one!"

That's, what, a four-year olds mentality?

[IndieLeft]

5. If you choose to ignore the substance, I can't help you.

Starting a war and Funding a war is NOT the same thing.

I have not criticized Hillary for funding the war. You criticize Obama for that.

The fact remains, that if the war was never started, then Obama wouldn't have to vote to fund it.

[K Gardner]

9. Stop it. You're making sense. That's not allowed in Hillaryworld.

[IndieLeft]

11. I know. I should wait till after 7... When all the Obama supporters come on.

If you make sense, and they can't argue the point, then they just try to shout you down.

I will not be shouted down.

[HeraldSquare212]

13. No, dude (or dudette, as the case may be), I was agreeing with you!

I think Hillary is acting like a four-year old criticizing Obama for fudning the war that she helped to start.

[IndieLeft]

17. Oh, okay. Thanks.

[TheDeathadder]

19. saying you're against a war

and then funding it

I don't know...that's a hefty flip flop if your message is your 100% against the war.

[kikiek]

48. BINGO! I didn't hear any complaints then from Obama. He isn't any Kuchinich.

[TheDeathadder]

76. I worked for Kucinich in 2004

so bingo is right on point

[rodeodance]

49. I think so too.

[Laurab]

72. It's a tough call - The troops are already there.

My nephew spent a year there, and may be going back. Not funding the war, in Bushworld means not funding the troops. I don't think it's a "flip-flop", really. Bush WOULD take funding away from the troops because he doesn't give a damn about them. He wouldn't agree to timetables. I don't see that vote as being nearly as wrong as the IWR vote.

[TheDeathadder]

78. I served in the army

I understand the house and senates power of the purse. I learned in the army the responsibility of duty. If Obama was against the war it was his duty not to fund it. Saying your against the war but then funding could be seen by some as a flip flop and not a right to right ride through the topic on a high horse.

[Laurab]

81. And it could also be seen as not supporting the troops. n/t

[TheDeathadder]

85. yeah

but I thought this was a new way of doing things and not same old politics, about voting on how you stand and not on how you look.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Your argument is that Obama voted to continue the war for political expediency

"He would have let the money run out, and then blamed the Democrats for abandoning the troops. How would that have sat with the American people? We wouldn't have a shot at another Dem president for 20 more years."

Why not just say that "if Dems had blocked the IWR we wouldn't have a shot at another Dem president for 20 more years."

Nobody knows if it's true or not, but it's the same kind of argument you're offering

[IndieLeft]

7. NO, he voted for it to keep the troops alive.

Did you miss that part? no money=no food, ammo, supplies...

So, why did Hillary vote to start the war? Answer: political expediency.

She couldn't afford to look weak. She was going to run for president.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

10. Ridiculous... you are saying troops would have actually DIED if the war was defunded?

Now there's some vintage RW talking points you can hang your hat on.

[IndieLeft]

12. I'm not the one using RW talking points.

Yes, without bullets and food... they would have died.

However, MORE IMPORTANTLY, If the war was never started in the first place, there would have been no need for war funding.

Care to argue that point?

No?

Didn't think so. You guys never do.

[MH1]

36. My nephew's life is NOT a right-wing talking point.

If his equipment breaks and is not replaced or repaired adequately, he could come home in a body bag.

You think George W. Bush GIVES A FUCK whether my nephew has the proper equipment?

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

[IndieLeft]

38. Neither is my cousin's

[AZBlue]

77. Enough died when the war was underfunded!!!

How many more deaths would be ok? Not funding them at all would greatly increase deaths.

[rodeodance]

50. You assume there would be an immediate cut off--But you knew that the plans

call for a stage withdrawal--

You are being deceptive.

[Evergreen Emerald]

3. No. I get it fine. I get the double standard. I get that no matter what

Clinton does, she will be attacked and her positions distorted.

I get that no matter what Obama does (or doesn't do) he will not be held to account.

I get it.

[IndieLeft]

4. Please, one thing Clinton is not is ACCOUNTABLE

At least not by her supporters.

I don't blame Clinton for funding the Iraq War. She had to, just as every other Dem had to.

But it is not the same as voting to authorize a war. And in fact, it is the CLINTON supporters that keep demonizing this task.

So, now, can you defend Hillary for supporting the war in the first place?

Or do you just have more empty rhetoric?

[in_cog_ni_to]

6. It's a BOGUS argument. Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time. He was running to be a Senator.

The entire argument IS BOGUS. He wasn't faced with the same decisions she was and wasn't fed the same BULLSHIT Intel by Cheney and his thugs. There is no comparison to be made.

TRUST ME!!! WE DO GET IT!

[IndieLeft]

8. NO, he wasn't in the US Senate

He was a state senator. And he still spoke out against it. You can't take that away from him.

And if Kucinich could get it right, why couldn't Clinton?

Because she wanted to look tough for her presidential run.

[in_cog_ni_to]

20. NO, it's not the same thing. He's my Senator. I know where he was at the time. Hillary was in the

U.S. Senate and Barack was campaigning (I helped put him where he is, I voted for him) for the Senate at the time. You are comparing apples and oranges. He wasn't faced with the same decisions she was faced with. The comparison is BOGUS.

[IndieLeft]

24. Hardly. He still had the foresight to speak out against it.

Who made him do that? His position CLEARLY was not for political reason. You can't say that about Hillary.

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. He lives here in Illinois. A BLUE STATE. That was a VERY easy position to take here. HE WON!

Sheesh. Why is that so freakin' hard to understand?

[IndieLeft]

30. No it wasn't an easy stance to take.

Even in IL. Got something else though? Care to adress why Hillary voted for the war? Or just more spin?

[in_cog_ni_to]

34. It most certainly was an easy stance to take here. If it was a bad/hard stance, he would have LOST.

Did you happen to see the bullshit Intel the Senate was fed? NO? Me either. and neither did Barack....because HE WASN'T IN THE SENATE AT THE TIME. Him using this as a campaign meme is ridiculous. Most people think he was actually IN THE SENATE at the time, when he wasn't. It's a bogus argument.

[IndieLeft]

39. Well Kucinich DID see it!

So did Richardson... and anyone else who actually READ the information.

She didn't read the intel... She was "briefed" on it.

Hillary only signed onto the war because she was afraid it was going to be over in a week, and she had to look strong because she was going to run for president.

If you can't admit it, then you can't admit. Go ahead, you can get duped too.

I feel so sorry for you.

[in_cog_ni_to]

43. LOL...I feel sorry for you because your guy is making a bogus argument and

you are falling for it. He would have voted the SAME way Hillary did, had he been facing the BOGUS Intel she was, but he wasn't even in the Senate, so his anti-war stance means nothing other than he was against the war PERSONALLY. So what? So was I!

[rodeodance]

61. And Clinton lived in NY--lived with the people when had been killed--see her speech--she

addressed this fact--she was thinking of her constituants.

she was not in IL--far away--but in the midst of it.

[rodeodance]

52. self delete-wrong line

[in_cog_ni_to]

54. I read her speech and she said SPECIFICALLY that the resolution did NOT give the psycho the right to

invade Iraq. Right. She lived through the 911 attacks...up close and personal. Obama was safe here in illinois.

[rodeodance]

56. oops, wrong person--it was not meant for you. i will try to fix.

[in_cog_ni_to]

58. LOL...that's okay.

:hi:

[Zodiak]

47. In all honesty

We cannot attribute motives to any of these politicians with any degree of certainty.

We do not know why she enabled Bush to start the war...all we should know is that she did it we should judge her on that. Not surmise her intentions, which is completely unknown to us.

But as long as we are looking at facts, remember also that her DLC ally, Will Marshall, is a PNAC signatory. Her political alliances include some of the intellectual roots of the Iraq invasion, and it is from her political alliances that she is likely to draw her cabinet and staff.

[Armstead]

18. Yes he opposed the war while running at a time when that could have been suicidal

You undercut your own argument when you point that out.

Political expediency for him would have been to support the damn war, like Hillary did.

[maddiejoan]

21. as a State Senator?

really?



really?

[in_cog_ni_to]

25. Yes. He was a state Senator running for the U.S. Senate at the time. n/t

[maddiejoan]

79. not my point

Foreign policy is generally not an issue one elects a State Senator over

[IndieLeft]

28. My mistake... He was in the state legislature.

[in_cog_ni_to]

23. No I don't undercut my argument. That was the easy thing for him.to do here in Illinois!

We're a BLUE State. Why do you think he got elected? I voted for him because he was against the war, but him being against the war IN A BLUE STATE and being faced with the same decisions Hillary was faced with are 2 different things entirely.

[IndieLeft]

29. The war wasn't a Red Blue issue then.

Even in IL it was a popular decision to go to war at the time. People just decided to go along with the commander in chief.

[in_cog_ni_to]

37. If it was a bad thing for him to do, he would have LOST the election.

You're argument on this is silly. There's no comparison between his anti-war stance when not serving in the Senate and her IWR vote when when she was facing tough decisions.

[IndieLeft]

40. It was the right thing for him to do.

He was right. She was wrong.

Can you prove me wrong? NO, you can't, because facts are facts.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Have a nice night.

[in_cog_ni_to]

45. That doesn't make his argument against Hillary right. His argument against her is still BOGUS.

Night, night!:hi:

[Armstead]

69. Hillary was in a blue state

I know 9-11 and all that....But by that time enough time had passed that she could have voted against the war.

[Blue-Jay]

14. This forum sucks dog balls.

See you fuckheads later.

[IndieLeft]

16. Like I said... Empty Rhetoric.

[Straight Shooter]

15. He forgives Lieberman for being a rabid war hawk, he even campaigned for him.

So I ask you, why won't the Dems forgive Hillary? Lieberman is boastful of being a war hawk, he wants to rattle sabers with the entire Middle East. Hillary wants diplomacy and seeing eye-to-eye to at least calm the situation down. As Howard Dean said, flip a coin for the difference between Hillary and Barack when it comes to policy.

I ask you again, why is it okay for Obama to promote and campaign for Lieberman? Why is Obama viewed with such awe for his perspicacious judgment and yet his supporters won't forgive Hillary?

[IndieLeft]

22. I don't forgive Lieberman. And you KNOW where Liberman stands.

Hillary is trying to have it both ways.

It's not their policy that concerns me, it's thier belief in their personal convictions that motivates me.

I don't trust Hillary. I don't respect Hillary. He says something different each day, and then denies ever saying it, even when it's on video.

One thing about Obama, you know where he stands. And he understands that it's not about HIM. It's about us.

You want an example? Garnishing wages.

On the last debate she said they would not garnish wages to pay for health care.

Then she went on one tv show and when asked directly about it, she said that they will have a method of enforcing it.

Then she went on another show and said that they will garnish wages to pay for health care.

Three different stories in 3 days. That is one of my BIG proplems with Hillary.

If you listen to Obama, his stories don't change. He believes in what he says, and has the courage to be steadfast. He wants this to be about US, not him.

You almost never hear him say "I will..." It is always "We"

That is a president.

[Straight Shooter]

63. You don't forgive Lieberman but you overlook that Barack campaigned for him.

He doesn't have the guts to stand up to Lieberman. He capitulated and voted to confirm Kindasleezy Rice, and I'm surprised he didn't excuse himself from the room before the vote.

He's been voting in tandem with Hillary, except for Kyl/Lieberman, when he didn't even bother to vote at all. Did. not. even. bother. to. vote. That way, he could have his cake and eat it, too; talk against the war, and yet do nothing tangible to stop it.

[Lord Helmet]

26. she's got blood on her hands

[IndieLeft]

31. She can put them through the spin cycle all she wants... It's not coming off.

[Lord Helmet]

32. you got that right

[pnwmom]

33. You don't get it. Before the Oct IWR, Bush had already announced that

he didn't need any authorization from Congress to attack Iraq -- and that he had an Attorney General opinion to back him up.

All the Democrats could have done would have been to impeach him after the fact -- but they wouldn't have even been able to convict him, because they wouldn't have gotten the votes from the Rethugs in the Senate. (And remember, Bush's popularity was extremely high at that point, and he had people like Colin Powell spreading his lies on national TV.)

Many Dems and even Repubs thought this would be setting a terrible precedent, if a President could take our country to war and receive nothing more than a wrist slap -- which is how a toothless impeachment would have been perceived. So Biden, Lugar, and Hagel went to the White House to work on a IWR. The version the White House wanted would have allowed the Bush to attack anywhere they wanted -- Iran, Syria, Greece, anywhere -- without any preconditions. The compromise version restricted Bush to Iraq and contained preconditions that they hoped would rein Bush in.

Bush was going to war, no matter what the Dems did. He had his Attorney General opinion that said he could go in without authorization; but he also could have just waited until January and gotten the Repub majority to give him whatever he wanted. So some Dems decided to work with the Rethugs to pass an IWR that would at least put some restrictions on him -- and it worked, to the extent that he STILL hasn't attacked anywhere but Iraq.

[IndieLeft]

35. He can announce all the BS he wants. It doesn't make it so.

A president cannot start a war; ONLY congress had. This was pre-patriot act days... remember?

Also, if he didn't need congress' approval, then why bother with an AUTHORIZATION vote?

Answer... He was trying to find democratic enablers... and Hillary Clinton fell for it, amongst others.

[in_cog_ni_to]

41. There ya go. You just admitted the psycho is a war criminal. The IWR

stated that he was to HONOR the War Powers Act...which states, CONGRESS DECLARES WAR and he didn't do that. That is NOT Hillary's fault. Sorry. No matter how bad you wish to blame her for the psycho illegally invading Iraq, it's not her fault...it's the PSYCHO'S fault.

[pnwmom]

53. The fact is that there would have been no way to punish him

except by impeaching him, and that they didn't have the votes for conviction.

Yes, he decided it was in his best interests to get enough Dems on board with a compromise IWR so that he could claim it had bi-partisan support.

But the Dems had a different aim in mind -- they were trying to put at least SOME restrictions on a President who was determined to attack Iraq whether or not he had their support.

[in_cog_ni_to]

57. DOWNING STREET MEMO!

Enough said.

[pnwmom]

82. Not relevant. n/t

[BlackVelvet04]

42. He didn't get a vote.....

you can't run on a vote you never had the opportunity to make especially after admitting you don't know how you would have voted if you had actually had to vote.

[in_cog_ni_to]

44. I forgot all about that waffle statement he made about the vote! Sheesh. That makes his anti-war

argument even MORE ridiculous!

[BlackVelvet04]

51. Really...

and it was a truthful statement. Without being in the same position the Senators who voted were and feeling the pressure and being told what they were told he can't possibly know what he would have done.

What we do know is he said he wouldn't vote to fund the war and yet he did. He claims to have superior judgment and yet he let greed take over and he made a land deal with a thug.....displaying terrible judgment.

He has a tendency to no vote on controversial issues, so I'm not real impressed with what his supporters feel sure he would have done had he actually been able to vote.

[rodeodance]

55. you made a fine agument. The OP says clinton does not get it. Do a thread

yourself--counting this thread?
I know---you will be bombared--but if you have the time.

[BlackVelvet04]

64. How about you do it and I just say

"I'm BlackVelvet and I approve this message." ;)

[rodeodance]

67. oh--not today. i am just not up to it right now. i will be longing of in a bit.i think but

lets keep it on the burner.
i would love you line--
luv yah
r

[BlackVelvet04]

68. I was kidding...

I started a thread....About the IWR vote.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4489158

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

66. "the Senators who voted were and feeling the pressure and being told what they were told"

So Obama would have voted for the war if he had been under the same pressure as the other traitors? No one under that kind of pressure would have voted against the war? Are you forgetting the 21 honorable Senators who were under the same pressure and told the same things who voted against the war, not to mention the majority of the Democratic Congresspeople in the House who also voted contrary to Senator Clinton? Of course it was possible to be under that kind of pressure and hearing the same lies to still vote against the war. The heroes of the Democratic party still voted against the war and against the traitors.

[Straight Shooter]

80. "He has a tendency to no vote on controversial issues."

That's exactly the point I made above. He absolutely will not commit himself on the record.

"He's been voting in tandem with Hillary, except for Kyl/Lieberman, when he didn't even bother to vote at all. Did. not. even. bother. to. vote. That way, he could have his cake and eat it, too; talk against the war, and yet do nothing substantive to stop it."

edited for precision

[phantom power]

46. Is he going to end the war if he gets elected?

I mean, we're in the war. Is he going to continue saying that he has to keep funding it? We have a word for that in computer science: "infinite loop."

[mtnsnake]

59. Only a brainless Obamaite would ever whine about Hillary calling Bush a dope

:wtf:

[rodeodance]

65. Obamababies whine all 'all things Clinton"--related or not.

[mtnsnake]

73. No kidding. Other people have tried before them, but they've successfully turned this place into WU

aka Whiners Underground.

Hey, it's not the fault of the Hillary supporters if the Obama whiners can't take constructive criticism without throwing a hissy fit. lol

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. "Squawk! I'm A Parrot!" "Squawk! IWR IWR" "Squawk! She Voted She Voted IWR IWR" "Squawk"

[Armstead]

70. Bears repeating endlessly

One of the most important votes in a lifetime, and she screwed the pooch on it, and still won;t admit her mistake.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

71. "Squawk! I'm A Parrot!" "Squawk! IWR IWR" "Squawk! She Voted She Voted IWR IWR" "Squawk"

[JAbuchan08]

83. I see your point.

You sure do look ridiculous shouting that out loud.

Twice.

In one thread.

[MethuenProgressive]

62. Until Obama entered the race, we all knew Bush planned the Iraq War long before he was elected.

Now that Obama's in the race, Hillary herself is the sole reason there's war in Iraq.
What an odd world the Obamas live in...

[mtnsnake]

75. Bingo. n/t

[JAbuchan08]

84. THose of us who were against the war from the beginning

have the righ to say "I told you so." You may not like it, but I told you so. Maybe not you specifically, but I made my position pretty clear at the time. For whatever reason, Obama had the foresight to make his position public prior to the vote. That turned out to be a good political move. Hillary voted for it, and that turned out to be a bad one.

[Cha]

74. Oh they get it..no one could be that

gawd damn dense.. they just want the fucking warmonger light off hilary 'cause it's so fucking hot.

[cooolandrew]

86. Exactly, Obama has always stated he puts troop safety first.