One has nothing to do with the other.

Come on, Rounds, don’t be like that.

Because everyone of those appropriations bills contained provisions for removing out troops from Iraq. They also contained provisions for shit the troops needed.

Whatever means? She only gave one option: we’ll obliterate them.

No thought given to preventing an attack. No thought to any other response to an attack. Just… obliteration.

Yes, that’s what we want in a president. Why waste time with thought?

McCain is not the best booster for international trade, since he earned his money the old fashioned way – he married it. In this respect, Romney’s background was better, but he was hampered by fears about Mormonism and his own desire to be everything to everybody.

No, I oppose Hillary because she said that, as an out-of-state Iowa college student, I didn’t have the right to vote. As for a link, look it up yourself, I’ve posted it too many times, and it’s gotten ignored just as many times by the Clinton supporters here.

You forgot that Obama has voted no on every Iraq appropriations bill. Just kidding, he voted for them. If he really oppossed this clusterfuck why does he keep voting for funding?

Simple, if funding were to drop, where would costs be cut first? That’s right, troop safety. Don’t act surprised that the Bush administration would sacrifice human lives for a cheap shot at the Dems. They’ve already been doing it.

Iranian leadership learned their lesson. They saw what happened to an Iraq without nukes and a North Korea with nukes. One was greeted with the U.S. Army, and the other was greeted with the NY Philharmonic. They would rather welcome classical musicians than US soldiers.

And why is HRC’s threat to “obliterate” Iran more acceptable than Ahmedinajad’s statement that Israel should be wiped off the map?

When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

I don’t suspect that insulting people is something that Oliver does much of or enjoys but simply because a poster feels insulted does not mean that person has actually been insulted.

That’s what you think, or hope.

My whole point was to take a jab at the attitude Obama supporters: “Once wrong, always wrong. Once right, always right.”

It’s because Obama supporters tend to dismiss anything Hillary Clinton says on foreign affairs because she voted for the war.

I gave Oliver 2 leading Obama supporters and prominent progressives who are not dismissed from foreign affairs discussions although they were strongly for the war. To the contrary, Matt Yglesias just wrote a whole book about what our foreign policy should be and Josh also write capably about that subject. They are not dismissed because they were for the war.

By the way Jon Chait from TNR called people like me us who were against the war “abject pacifist”.

We must hold people to account but it doesn’t mean anything she says on the Middle East should be dismissed out of hand because “she chose incorrectly.” That the attitude I found ridiculous, even for someone as brilliant as Oliver Willis.

I said pro (Candidate) blogger tend to have a very simple view of the world and this was a prime example.

Just because he didn’t have a vote in Congress at the time doesn’t mean we can’t hold her to account for the her vote. If we’re restricted to comparing/contracting the two only on the specific items which they both had a chance to act on, we could consider nothing but the recent few years Obama has been in the Senate.

PTCruiser: Oliver can insult anybody here hat he wishes to insult. It’s his blog.

And if Oliver actually chose to take that attitude I’m sure he would find far fewer folks here.