It takes something of a divorce from reality to wrap one’s head around Sen. Clinton’s message in this foreign policy speech. On the face of it, that’s because she’s changed the message in her campaign so many times. But further, it’s just kind of a stinky message that just echoes what John McCain and the Republicans say and will say this fall.
“We’ve seen the tragic results of having a president who didn’t have neither the experience nor the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our national security. We can’t let that happen again.”
Except, of the two candidates remaining in this race, only one of those voted to authorized that inexperienced and foolish President to go to what Barack Obama rightly labeled a “dumb war”.
Her name was Hillary Clinton. So, how can you say with a straight face that Sen. Obama isn’t experienced enough to make the stupid mistake she did in voting for the war in Iraq?
It’s a skill.
“…the tragic results of having a president who didn’t have neither the experience nor the wisdom…”
And who couldn’t speak the English good.
Obama campaigning for his Senate mentor, Joe Lieberfuck when it was politically expedient tells me everything I need to know about Obama.
I don’t get why Obama gets so much credit for being against the war. It’s not like he was in the U.S. Senate at the time to vote on it. He hasn’t held a national office until Jan of 07 and he’s been running for president since then. Many people not in the Congress were against it at that time, including college students, doesn’t mean they have a good handle on foreign policy or had the information that Congress did.
Apparent you are in opposition to Lieberman’s then-opponent, Ned Lamont, who endorsed Sen. Obama.
Many people not in the Congress were against it at that time, including college students, doesn’t mean they have a good handle on foreign policy or had the information that Congress did.
History has shown us the exact opposite. Those of us outside of power who were against the war were way smarter than the president and congressfolks who voted for it. Sen. Clinton wants to make this about foreign policy judgment. Well, is there a better example than Iraq?
Obama campaigning for his Senate mentor, Joe Lieberfuck when it was politically expedient tells me everything I need to know about Obama.
Oh come on, be fair. That was before we found out he was a Sith Lord.
http://boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/03/31/obama_rallies_state_democrats_throws_support_behind_lieberman/
Obama rallies state Democrats, throws support behind Lieberman
By Stephanie Reitz, Associated Press Writer | March 31, 2006
HARTFORD, Conn. –U.S. Sen. Barack Obama rallied Connecticut Democrats at their annual dinner Thursday night, throwing his support behind mentor and Senate colleague Joe Lieberman.
Obama, an Illinois Democrat who is considered a rising star in the party, was the keynote speaker at the annual Jefferson Jackson Bailey Dinner.
Lieberman, Connecticut’s junior senator, is under fire from some liberal Democrats for his support of the Iraq War. He was key in booking Obama, who routinely receives more than 200 speaking invitations each week.
Some at Thursday’s dinner said that while they were pleased with Lieberman’s success in bringing Obama to Connecticut, they still consider Lieberman uncomfortably tolerant of the Bush administration.
Obama wasted little time getting to that point, calling it the “elephant in the room” but praising Lieberman’s intellect, character and qualifications.
“The fact of the matter is, I know some in the party have differences with Joe. I’m going to go ahead and say it,” Obama told the 1,700-plus party members who gathered in a ballroom at the Connecticut Convention Center for the $175-per-head fundraiser.
“I am absolutely certain Connecticut is going to have the good sense to send Joe Lieberman back to the U.S. Senate so he can continue to serve on our behalf,” he said.
Apparent you are in opposition to Lieberman’s then-opponent, Ned Lamont, who endorsed Sen. Obama.
So what? He said in 2004 [again when it was politically expedient] that given the same info he wouldn’t know how he would have voted.
Weak.
Lamont Gets Help From Obama
And again, in 2002, Sen. Obama was against the war. At the same time, Sen. Clinton voted for it.
Gee would this be praise for the same Senator Obama who, within a day or two, said 1) he would not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances; and 2) he would do whatever it takes to get Osama Bin Laden, even it meant going after him in Pakistan?
I’m trying to think of a better way to pin a giant “KICK ME” sign on the US than to renounce nuclear weapons, then invade a nuclear power. Or, perhaps, I should say “NUKE ME.”
Foreign policy is far more than taking a position on a war before one even is a US Senator. And even setting aside his position on the war (which I disagree with, but respect because he’s being consistent, unlike Hillary who’s had to rewrite her own history a dozen times or so), I’ve not heard much about his ideas beyond Iraq.
J.
Many people not in the Congress were against it at that time, including college students, doesn’t mean they have a good handle on foreign policy
Perhaps not, but they certainly have a better handle than the people in charge.
And for you Clinton supporters, tell me this:
As an out-of-state Iowa college student, why should I vote for someone that doesn’t want my vote?
Uhhh….no, Ollie, in 2002 he was not SENATOR Obama yet.
Senator Clinton has consistently voted to give the President the power to do his job.
You can certainly argue she should not have given that power to Rove-Cheney-Bush. But her consistent stance, to preserve the Constitutional power of the Presidency, makes it hard for anyone to say she “voted for the war”.
She did not.
Look, suppose the Chief of Police in your town came to your Town Council and said “I need you to approve the use of live ammo in town by my cops. I have a face-to-face with an outlaw biker gang, and their leader needs to know our force is locked and loaded before he decides whether to take us on.”
This was in analogy what Bush demanded from the Congress in October 2002. Hillary voted to give that Police Chief Bush the support he asked for. Further, she went and asked him personally more than once to give her assurances.
That Police Chief Bush armed all his cops with live ammo, said “Boys, it’s open season!” So we ended up shooting an unarmed man in the back, and causing untold damage to innocents and bystanders.
I say blame the Police Chief and his cronies, not any member of the Town Council.
Thanks for the link to Obama supporting Lamont. So now he backed BOTH the Lieberpunk AND Ned Lamont in 2006?
Talk about hedging your bets to make sure your ass is covered, huh?
He supported Lieberman, then when Lamont was the Democratic nominee – he supported the Democratic nominee. You’ll find Sen. Clinton did much the same thing.
The Chief of Police analogy just falls apart. Because in this case, the Police Chief is a fucking idiot. Seriously. You know it and I knew it. I don’t care if she asked him 1000 times if he could give her assurances, the chief was an idiot. I knew it, and I suspect so did you. So did 23 other senators and 133 members of the House. Those votes were votes for and against the war.
Vice President Gore was against it.
John Kerry said it was wrong to vote for it.
John Edwards said it was wrong to vote for it.
Does the bulk of the blame for the Iraq war go to George Bush? You bet. But did Hillary Clinton have an important role in that process? You bet.
If she’s making the argument that her foreign policy judgement is better than Sen. Obama, “I was dumb enough to believe George W. Bush” doesn’t exactly cut the mustard.
1. Jay Tea is an idiot. Going after bin Laden in Pakistan is a lot different than say, preemptively nuking some country like Iran. If we went after bin Laden in Pakistan and they retaliated by nuking Israel or something, then nukes would probably be back on the table. But we are the United States, we shouldn’t be putting the nukes on the table first.
2. I don’t think any of the candidates are generals. It’s not like Hillary has ever commanded troops in battle, sent people off to die for the flag, or even played a really intense game of RISK. She, Obama, and McCain will be relying on others to do the strategy. The CiC’s job comes down to good intelligence, honest advisors and an ability to analyze the strategy, diplomacy and politics, and good ole fashion judgement. That is exactly why Bush sucked so bad. Bad intelligence, dishonest advisors, and complete incompetence in analyzing strategy and diplomacy and the worst judgement ever. He actually made the most famous of Vizzini’s blunders Oh, and his mind was made up before he got any actual intelligence. It’s kind of why McCain would suck as CiC, his mind is already made up: Iraq 4EVER and he wants to attack Iran.
midderpidge calls me an idiot, then says something even more idiotic.
“I don’t think any of the candidates are generals. It’s not like Hillary has ever commanded troops in battle, sent people off to die for the flag, or even played a really intense game of RISK.”
John McCain was never a general (or, to give the naval equivalent, an admiral), true enough, but he was a Lt. Commander (three steps below admiral, or equivalent to a major) and led pilots into battle. Then, later, as Commanding Officer of an attack squadron, he was prepared to both “send people off to die for the flag” and “lead troops (rather, pilots) into battle” — air squadron COs tend to lead from the front.
Say what you want about McCain (and I’ve said plenty), his military experience is far more credible than either Clinton’s, Obama’s, or even John Kerry or Al Gore, for that matter.
J.
“I say blame the Police Chief and his cronies”
What about the biker gang? Don’t THEY deserve any of the blame?
Jay Tea is an idiot. Everything I said about McCain is factually accurate. If president, McCain will not be the guy making battle plans. Any direct experience he has is 30 years dated He was not an admiral. He does not have experience directing military campaigns and like the others, he will be relying on others to do any and all military planning. Furthermore, he has preconceived ideas about Iraq, and even more damning Iran. That means he will probably rely on the same dishonest intelligence sources Bush did.
Remember, Iraq has not been a military failure. It’s been a policy failure on the part of George Bush and his administration. McCain has given every indication he will continue that legacy of failure, and seems to want to expand it to Iran.
I’m trying to think of a better way to pin a giant “KICK ME” sign on the US than to renounce nuclear weapons, then invade a nuclear power. Or, perhaps, I should say “NUKE ME.”
As far as i know pakistan doesn’t have icbms so im not sure exactly how you actually think they could nuke us. At the same time, are you suggesting that Obama said he would never nuclear weapons period. Ever. Under any circumstances? Because that’s not what i remember him saying.
I recall that he said, in response to a question, that he would never use nuclear weapons in fighting the war on terror. Never using nuclear weapons EVER and never using nuclear weapons in fighting the war on terror are two entirely different positions.
Now, Jay Tea, I have a very simple question for you. You wrote that Obama said that “he would not use nuclear weapons under any circumstances.” Where did you read that?
Shorter JT: I’m scawred!!!! Daddy protect me from the mean terrarists!1!@#!
JT is backwoods trailer trash that depends on his wizbang echo chamber to keep him from drowning himself in the tub. No reason to treat him like his opinions have merit.
What about the biker gang? Don’t THEY deserve any of the blame?
Nah.
The “biker gang” turned out to be a bunch of sixth-graders on skateboards.