Skip to main content

WASHINGTON -- Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called Tuesday for tougher punishment against Syria, saying the country was aggressively supporting terrorism in the "dangerous neighborhood" of the Middle East.

Iran and Syria "pose such great threats not only to peace and stability, but in Iran's case the potential for nuclear capacity, and in Syria's case, with the continuation of the support for terrorism that flows from Damascus," she said. oth Iran and Syria were cause for alarm, but Clinton said Syria deserved special attention.

"I've been particularly troubled by the Syrians' aggressive posture," said Clinton. "We need to send a very clear message that we will not tolerate what we believe to be and have reason to know is the continuing support for terrorism that comes out of Syria and Iran."

http://tinylink.com/?Ogstc4UNHA

She appears to be running for president just like her husband. It will probably help her, but I am not sure it will help the party. Now I just wonder if she and McCain sponser a resolution allowing Bush to go to war with Iran and Syria.

Originally posted to ECH on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:00 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Send Chelsea (2.80)
    C'mon, Hillary, put up or shut up, you phony.
    •  %$#@ That!!!! (none)
      Send Hillary.

      They'll be offering terms in a week.

      [spillane]
      She is, and I mean this in a complimentary way, one tough broad.
      [/spillane]

      The Dream involves 4 sets of identical twins, 2 gallons of Cool Whip, 5 quarts of chocolate syrup, 2-1/4 pounds of strawberries, satin sheets, a magnum of champ

      by msaroff on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:21:40 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I voted for her. (none)
    What would have been different had I voted for Lazio?
    •  Vote for tax cuts (none)
      Vote for Ashcroft
      Vote for Gonzales
      Vote for all those recylced judges he's trying to get confirmed.

      That's what Lazio would have given you.

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

      by Cathy on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:07:30 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  nothing (none)
      She still would have won without your 1 vote. The margin wasn't exactly close.

      If Lazio had won, then the past two months would have been very different in terms of New York's congressional representation. You could be sure that he would have voted for Gonzalez and denounced Barbara Boxer's election challenge.

  •  Syria, Iran and Senator Clinton (3.50)
    Syria and Iran do sponsor terrorism.  Just as I supported the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan, I would have supported war in Syria and Iran (and Saudi too, for that matter) in response to 9/11.

    However, since Bush invaded Iraq, and Senator Clinton voted aye regarding the invasion of Iraq, I no longer trust either one of them when they speak to issues of national security and/or terrorism.  (BTW, how does when threaten, much less carry out, a war against either Syria or Iran without a draft?  We've kinda got our hands full at the moment, fighting people who had nothing to do with 9/11.)

    I've said it before, but I really think it bears repeating.  No one who voted for the immoral war in Iraq will get a vote from me.  Yes, I voted for John Kerry in 2004, because getting Bush out trumped everything else.  But no more.  Doubly so when people who see what we've wrought in Iraq stand up and cheer for it, as Senator Clinton did last week.

    •  You would have supported a war with Syria (none)
      But not Iraq?

      Whatever one says about Saddam he did allow terrorists to operate in his country over the years. Howard Dean said it best in 2003 that Saddam is a regional threat to stibility not an international threat, the same is true of Syria.

      •  Syria (none)
        Read Bob Graham's work on Syria.  He surmises that the Syrians were in bed with Al Queda, Hezbollah, etc.  

        Whatever one says about Saddam he did allow terrorists to operate in his country over the years.

        That's the same bullshit we got from the Bush administration.  Saddam, while a bastard, never was involved in aiding fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.  In fact, he was a sworn enemy of Al Queda.  

        BTW, the United States supported Iraq in the Iran/Iraq war Saddam was secular, and Iran was fundamentalist.  We supported Saddam even when he "gassed his own people" because he was considered a better option than the Khomeini regime in Iran.

        •  Bullshit (none)
          Terrorists aren't just Al-Qaeda. Without getting at all into Zarqawi. Abu Nidal was a major terrorist that Saddam allowed to stay in his country and there were many others. But, they for the most part were interested in regional targets like in Israel, they weren't interested in attacks in the US like I said above.
          •  Bullshit, Indeed (none)
            Bad actors roam the world.  For that matter, Uzbekistan is our "ally" in the "war on terror."  Take a look at what goes on there and get back to me.  

            Who attacked us on 9/11?  It was Al Queda.  Did Iraq sponsor or support Al Queda?  No.  Iraq was a secular society. I say "was" because it's only a matter of time before the "democratically elected" government in Iraq makes Sharia the law of the land.  Saddam's was by no means a humanitarian regime, but it was secular.  It looks like we've managed to install something potentially worse than Saddam. Read Riverbend to get an idea of how Iraq is unfolding:

            [T]he list is frightening- Da'awa, SCIRI, Chalabi, Hussein Shahristani and a whole collection of pro-Iran political figures and clerics. They are going to have a primary role in writing the new constitution. There's talk of Shari'a, or Islamic law, having a very primary role in the new constitution. The problem is, whose Shari'a? Shari'a for many Shia differs from that of Sunni Shari'a. And what about all the other religions? What about Christians and Mendiyeen?

            Is anyone surprised that the same people who came along with the Americans - the same puppets who all had a go at the presidency last year - are the ones who came out on top in the elections? Jaffari, Talbani, Barazani, Hakim, Allawi, Chalabi... exiles, convicted criminals and war lords. Welcome to the new Iraq.

            Ibraheim Al-Jaffari, the head of the pro-Iran Da'awa party gave an interview the other day. He tried very hard to pretend he was open-minded and that he wasn't going to turn the once-secular Iraq into a fundamentalist Shia state but the fact of the matter remains that he is the head of the Da'awa party. The same party that was responsible for some of the most infamous explosions and assassinations in Iraq during the last few decades. This is the same party that calls for an Islamic Republic modeled like Iran. Most of its members have spent a substantial amount of time in Iran.

            Jaffari cannot separate himself from the ideology of his party.

            Then there's Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). He got to be puppet president for the month of December and what was the first thing he did? He decided overburdened, indebted Iraq owed Iran 100 billion dollars. What was the second thing he did? He tried to have the "personal status" laws that protect individuals (and especially women) eradicated.

            They try to give impressive interviews to western press but the situation is wholly different on the inside. Women feel it the most. There's an almost constant pressure in Baghdad from these parties for women to cover up what little they have showing. There's a pressure in many colleges for the segregation of males and females. There are the threats, and the printed and verbal warnings, and sometimes we hear of attacks or insults.

            You feel it all around you. It begins slowly and almost insidiously. You stop wearing slacks or jeans or skirts that show any leg because you don't want to be stopped in the street and lectured by someone who doesn't approve. You stop wearing short sleeves and start preferring wider shirts with a collar that will cover up some of you neck. You stop letting your hair flow because you don't want to attract attention to it. On the days when you forget to pull it back into a ponytail, you want to kick yourself and you rummage around in your handbag trying to find a hair band... hell, a rubber band to pull back your hair and make sure you attract less attention from them.

            We were seriously discussing this situation the other day with a friend. The subject of the veil and hijab came up and I confessed my fear that while they might not make it a law, there would be enough pressure to make it a requirement for women when they leave their homes. He shrugged his shoulders and said, "Well women in Iran will tell you it's not so bad- you know that they just throw something on their heads and use makeup and go places, etc." True enough. But it wasn't like that at the beginning. It took them over two decades to be able to do that. In the eighties, women were hauled off the streets and detained or beaten for the way they dressed....

            Congratulations, Bush, Hillary and Kerry.  You've sent 1,500 soliders to their deaths (not to mention our soldiers who have suffered non-lethal casualties like amputations and brain damage, and especially not to mention the innocent Iraqi civilians in the wrong place at the wrong time) to create Iran, Jr.  Meanwhile, Osama is laughing his ass off.

            •  You have no idea what I am trying to say (none)
              If you think I am justifying the war I have to laugh, but saying that Syria is much more dangerous then Iraq ever was is simply a joke.

              I give up.

              •  be strong (none)
                You're not the only one. There are a lot of feelings of "You have no idea what I am trying to say" going on in these diary comments.
              •  You didn't look up Bob Graham and Syria, did you? (none)
                You don't understand what I'm trying to say, because you're too caught up in your defense of HRC to look at facts.  

                Remember, the reason given for the Iraq War that Saddam had WMD, and to a lesser unproven extent (unproven because it wasn't true) that Iraq was somehow involved in 9/11 - not simply that Saddam ran a brutal regime.  Had the fact that Saddam was brutal been peddled to justify the war, that would have been different.  It wasn't.

                Regarding Syria.  Bob Graham was the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.  He actually wanted to fight those who attacked us (I know, a novel idea), and he actually had the temerity to vote against the Bush/Halliburton war in Iraq (heretical!).  

                Anyway, since you won't go look, I'll bring it here:

                GRAHAM:  ...as a result of the Iraq war because we have taken the focus off the international terrorists. For instance, we've known for a long time that Syria and the Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon, there was a substantial presence of the most violent terrorists in the world and yet until recently we've been unwilling to confront Syria with that fact, and demand that either they take care of that cesspool or that we, with a coalition like we've had in Afghanistan, would take care of it.

                And here:

                MJ.com: In addition to Al Qaeda, where else should intelligence and anti-terrorism efforts focus?

                BG [Bob Graham]: The other major international terrorist groups, starting with Hezbollah and going on to Hamas and Islamic Jihad and others. Those are groups that have demonstrated their willingness to kill Americans; until 9/11, Hezbollah had killed more Americans than any other international terrorist group. They are well-organized. They've had a history of conducting successful operations. We've done virtually nothing to them. For instance, in the book I describe a meeting with the president of Syria, which is the home for Hezbollah and Hamas, urging that he take action to expel those groups from his country. He was very defensive about that and our government has been unwilling to face him down and basically say, "It's intolerable for you to be providing a sanctuary for these murderous terrorist groups. And if you aren't willing to evict them, then with the international community, we will be forced to do so."

                MJ.com: What actions can the United States take against nations that, like Syria, continue to harbor these groups?

                BG: It may involve sanctions, and in fact the Congress has now passed legislation authorizing the president to use economic sanctions against Syria, an authorization that the president has been very tepid in utilizing. But Syria's a country that understands its position in the world, which is that of a declining power. And I believe strong U.S. diplomatic demands, backed up by other major international forces which recognize the power and potential of terrorist activities against them that Hezbollah and Hamas represent, we could force change in Syrian policy without having to resort to military activity. But we've never tried to have the iron fist in the velvet glove.

                See, having desired an aggressive stance against Syria and not Iraq made sense, if you paid attention.  Now, in the Iraq aftermath, when it comes to matters of war, Bush and Hillary do not deserve a listen.  Why should anyone trust them anymore?    

                Syria and Iran do need to be dealt with.  However, since Iraq, our country has no standing to pursue our real enemies.  "Fool me once...."

              •  Disregard the first paragraph (none)
                You are obviously not trying to defend HRC.  "Kbse matt" is the Hillary apologist - not you.  

                But, my comment regarding Syria still stands.  I am not a pacifist, and I think we should have attacked the people who perpetrated 9/11.  We had great sympathy after 9/11.  Even France and Canada went to Afghanistan with us against the Taliban.  

                Too bad we pulled the Iraq nonsense.  We could have really brought the force of the entire world to bear against Islamic fundamentalist terror.

      •  Don't (none)
        let the truth get out. Syria is just a buch of nice thugs.
        •  It isn't our place/job.... (none)
          to take out all the f'ing thugs in the world!!!

          arrrrrgggghhhh!!!!

          I am sick to death of the sick debate on WHO we will war against.  How's about NO WAR?

          Where are the dems heading? Not left, not right -- but FORWARD! Chaaaaaarrrrrggggge!

          by Zapata28 on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:32:01 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  We support terrorism... (none)
      The problem with your moralizing about states supporting terrorism is that we do it to.  We supported terrorist elements who wanted to overthrow the government of Iraq.  We support terrorist elements that want to overthrow the government of Iran.  

      We don't call them terrorists, because that's bad PR.  One person's freedom fighter is another person's terrorist.  The problem is they are the exact same thing.  

      As long as we promote destabilizing countries by supporting revolutionary groups, we cannot complain when those countries do the same thing.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:59:31 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  By the way... (none)
      Your blanket support of war against half a dozen middle eastern countries is ridiculous.  You can't just invade the entire region.  

      I question whether you have learned the lesson of the Iraq war, which has exposed the serious limitations of our military.  

      If we'd invaded Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia following 9/11 we'd be in even a worse situation right now.  We can't even hold Iraq which is a smaller country than any of those.  

      In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

      by Asak on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:04:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Come on... (none)
    Do you honestly think the party will be strong if it doesn't come out AGAINST terrorism?

    I'm just providing a Hillary defense in anticipation of postings by ideological purists who think that all war is wrong and that the United States shouldn't try to help people.

    It's not like she's saying that George Bush hasn't made any mistakes...

    Come on.. tear me apart

    •  Straw man (4.00)
      Classic.

      I'm just providing a Hillary defense in anticipation of postings by ideological purists who think that all war is wrong and that the United States shouldn't try to help people.

      "It's either black or white."

      Cut the bullshit if you want to have a rational discussion.

    •  I think SeeingStars has been banned (none)
      so you won't get the fight you're looking for thank GOD.

      Did you ever notice how those purists were almost always foreigners?

      •  Nothing against foreigners (none)
        just saying the posters at dkos who thought Kerry was a war monger because killing is never ever justified, more often than not, did not live here. Had no understanding of American politics either.
      •  Catfish I hope you're not serious (none)
        •  they said because Kerry was in Vietnam (none)
          he was a murderer. It was a handful of dkos users, but to them every member of our armed forces was a murderer - and this was before Nov. 2.

          And every time I clicked their username to read other comments they made, they were folks who didn't live here.

          If you have a problem with that, I don't know what to tell you.

      •  thank you (none)
        Notice how Hillary is essentially talking about being strong against terorrism. She's not asking us to go to war with everybody. She's not giving Bush's SOTU speech. There are some on this site who equate her comments with lying about reasons to go to war, inviting her to send Chelsea overseas. I'm a 23y/o male in Brooklyn. Think I haven't thought about how Bush's (not Hillary's) policies seem to require a draft?
        •  Wake up (4.00)
          She's beating the drum on Syria.

          Do you read newspapers?

          Condoleeza Rice has been beating the drum against Syria.  Bush has been doing the same.

          When Bush asks for another "war authorization" vote ("He's not asking to war!  He just wants permission to go to war in case we have to!"), do you think Hillary will vote to give him authorization or not?

          How many times do you want to be fooled?

          Next time, you're going, pal.

          Enjoy the front.

        •  I am sick of the ASSUMPTION.... (none)
          that the USA is under 'attack'... and everything we consider in the foreign policy realm is about what we are going to do about all those bad people warring against us.

          Best I can detect, the USA is not under attack.  Well, not yet.  China and Russia are waiting for us to blow our economic wad... and THEN apply the final daggar.  And we will sorely deserve it.

          Where are the dems heading? Not left, not right -- but FORWARD! Chaaaaaarrrrrggggge!

          by Zapata28 on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:36:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why? (none)
            Why did you respond to my comment with that comment? That has nothing to do with what I said at all.
            •  Why? (none)
              First, it is not for you to control or determine how a person interprets the news item you present.

              Second, whether you can see it or not, that is a friggin BATTLE cry... more war, war, war, being called out by a dem senator.  You might not have a problem with that.  I do.  And the template for justification of that war?  Oh yes, the war on terra.  

              Third, I don't get it.  All across the liberal blog world, there are these cheers of joy for Lebanon.  I don't get it.  If there were a problem, we do have a world court of sorts called the UN which could effectively peacefully take care of the syrian issue. There was no reason to create massive unrest.

              Fourth, I can't prove to you today what a friggin mess this syria/lebanon issue is. But please bookmark this for 6 months into the future.  Then we can talk about the USA's actions/words/battle cries in mar 2005 and maybe contemplate what a little temperance and diplomacy might have done to remedy the clusterfuck that is about to unfold.

              Where are the dems heading? Not left, not right -- but FORWARD! Chaaaaaarrrrrggggge!

              by Zapata28 on Wed Mar 02, 2005 at 12:05:51 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  lebanon (none)
                the coverage in the RWCM of this is embarassing, even by their recent low stadards. is there not anyone old enough to realize why syrian trops were there? can any of the likud not tell the truth about syria's role there?
                •  since it's still being covered up, (none)
                  syria occupied lebanon as an act of international goodwill, to bail out UN peacekeepers who were ineffective and being slaughtered by the homicidal maniacs on both sides of a civil war there. think "al qaeda versus the aryan nations" here. by occupying lebanon, syria put an effective halt to hezbollah's attacks on northern israel launched from their refugee camp/bases in southern lebanon.

                  those christians marching in the streets of beirut are historically neither democratic nor especially human. their militia- the phalange- are some of the most bloodthirsty murderers in the history of mankind. but, of course, since they murder arabs they are ariel sharon's friends, even if they often pray upon innocent women and children. sharin has been an accomplice of phalange mass murders, ensuring sharon's place alongside the hitlers, stalins, pol pots and the likes as one of history's vile mass murderers.

                  the same sharon who is supported by joe lieberman, joe biden, hillary clinton and the like.

                  •  Thank you for the necessary reminder!! (none)
                    And it sure should make liberals 'pause' when falwell goes on his christian network to applaud the coming 'prophecy' re Damascus.  Oh boy, he was hot yesterday!

                    Where are the dems heading? Not left, not right -- but FORWARD! Chaaaaaarrrrrggggge!

                    by Zapata28 on Thu Mar 03, 2005 at 08:59:55 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Wag the frog. (none)
      Con-di came up with the "bad, bad, Syria" today, claiming to "know that they allowed the planning of the suicide bombing in Israel".  And now Clinton jumps on the BushCo bandwagon.  To what end?  Horse hockey.

      Syria just lost Lebanon, [one of our biggest complaints against them] and it had absolutely nothing to do with the US.  Their former leader is killed, the Lebanese take to the streets, resulting in a collapse of the Syrian-backed regime.  Now our politicos & pundits are "air boxing" - trying to get press & "atta-boys" - for an event over which the US has no control.  Kinda like taking credit for the elections in the Ukraine.

      We fly our "enemy combatants" in on US-sponsored jets to be tortured in Syrian jails.  We praised their efforts to seal their border w/Iraq, and give up people seeking safe haven.  We all but remove them from the "evil ones" during the course of the war, and now, because it's BushCo approved, USDA-certified policy we're back to accusing them of "state-sponsored" terrorism.  Once again, HORSE HOCKEY.

      Think back, lo these 5 years ago, to when BC himself was in the process of ever-so-gently approaching the Iranians.  They had a viable opposition movement - up and down but slowly moving forward.  Then came 9/11 [which the Iranians condemned], and the Axis of Evil speech, and the rest is history.

      Ya gotta love it.  Must've been something in her coffee.  Yeah, th-th-that's it.

    •  gooooooooooo (none)
      fuck yourself if you think that line of BS paraphrases a significant spectrum of the regulars in here, and if you think opposition to war is opposition to "helping people."
      •  ugh (none)
        I'm glad you qualified your statement with an "if".

        I saw a diary about Hillary Clinton and thought I would post a few comments defending her. Whenever she is mentioned, I read comment after comment from all varieties of users who say that she is Republican-lite for not being the Democratic messiah. Sometimes I see comments that I think belong on freerepublic.

        Many here say that they would never vote for anyone who voted for this war. I think that is an unreasonable standard. I believed Colin Powell when he went to the UN. Bush's false 17 words in his SOTU speech that year got to me too. I wound up supporting the Iraq war initially, but knowing what I know now, I wouldn't have supported it. I made a mistake. Hillary saw the same edited/modified intelligence that the rest of the congressional Democrats saw.

        Regarding my comment on helping people through war...I was referring to conflict that wound up liberating people. When I was in high school, the classes would get into arguments about the validity and necessity of Clinton's military intervention efforts in Somalia, Haiti, the Balkans, etc. All of the liberals were for those efforts, including me. The conservatives were against using the military to end tyrrany and oppression. I heard arguments against the United States being the "world police" and that bettering humanity was none of our business because it wasn't in our national interest.

        Now Bush has stolen the moral high ground argument, even if it was only after all of the justifications for war proved false and/or insufficient. I don't believe he is sincere, but that doesn't mean that I don't want it to succeed. I don't believe that the United States is doing any good in the middle east now, especially in light of the torture. The truth is that we don't know yet. We should criticize the Republicans because they always seem to go out of their way to mess everything up. It's your right to criticize Hillary for whatever you want. I just wanted to share my opinion that Hillary's use of harsh rhetoric against hostile nations is not equivalent to what Bush has done or even what Lieberman has done. She hasn't sent anyone to war.

        I don't think that any of my comments justify any of you telling me to go off to war or to Cheney myself. I may be 23 y/o but a lot of the rest of you have a lot of growing up to do too.

        •  hillary (none)
          clinton has nothing, and i do mean nothing, on almost anyone in here in terms of "helping people"- whatever her strengths are, empathy, compassion and unselfishness are not among them. the tying together of war and "helping people" is insipid.
  •  2008 (none)
    Wow, didn't know the 2008 campagn season already started...
  •  I had such (none)
    faith that she would be rational.  WTF is this:

    what we believe to be and have reason to know

    Or should have known, or maybe someone told me, or "Bill Sez", or "I read it in the Podunk Daily Spews"?  She coulda been a contenda.

  •  I have no problem with her talking tough (none)
    But, if she's going to flirt with outtoughing W. and the presidency, then let's make her spell it out.  What specifically does she mean?  What would she do as president?  Attack? What, Hillary?

    "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

    by Cathy on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:09:24 PM PST

  •  Ka-Ching!!! (none)
    OK, I know its politically incorrect to say this -- but it's clear what she's doing -- she's FUNDRAISING!  Be out in front pushing AIPAC's objectives, and AIPAC will return the favor whe she needs $$$$.

    I'd be very curious to cross reference the first couple hundred $2000 donors when she forms an exploratory committee against AIPACs membership list.

    Bought. And. Paid. For.

  •  Hillary, keep this up (none)
    and you'll be shining George's shoes by the end of the week.
    Anybody got her f#@king email, she's going to get a piece of me
  •  Clintons and Bushes (none)

      Anybody else taken notice of the changes in the relationships with the Clintons and the Bushes.

      All of a sudden, Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton are buddy-buddy and Hillary Clinton publicly advocates more hawkish position on Mid-East Policy.

      You've seen the commercials with Bush Sr. and Clinton asking for tsunami donations.  Also heard a report that they travelled together to visit some of the areas that were hit, but I haven't seen confirmation of it yet.

      Now Hillary is talking tough on Iran and Syria, and I believe she has recently made some comments about Iraq that did not exactly sound like a member of an opposition party.

      Can anybody else fill in the gaps here with some links or your own observations?

      If memory is serving me correctly, maybe some kind of deal or understanding has been struck between between the Clintons and the Bushes.
     (i.e.: Hillary '08, Jeb '12)

    One hand forward with a flower, one hand behind with the dagger.

    by Predator Saint on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:28:04 PM PST

    •  What kind of deal? (none)
      It's a stupid deal if there is one because the Bushes are the most unethical, win at all costs cutthroats that ever ran for office.  They run and win and then sling the mud off on everybody else and smile and pretend make nice until the next election.

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine

      by Cathy on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 05:33:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's not political... (none)
        The Clintons have made it up into the upper echelons of the American aristocracy.  Nothing Bush has done hurts these people.  They'll be on top no matter what.  

        In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.

        by Asak on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 07:07:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  W succumbed to the kryptonite (none)
      that is Bubba charm.

      No, seriously I did notice this. I attributed it to the kryptonite and the fact that Bubba wants Kofi Annan's job, which will require US approval.

    •  It is strange (none)
      how chummy these folks have become...

      ...if I were an idealist (well I am but a cynical one at that) I would say the Clinton's are trying to soften up Hilary's polarizing "edge" - if she and her hubby are clearing brush down in Crawford, then Rush's hateful rampages over her won't go over as well, will they?  (I mean, he'd be basically defaming a lady that Laura might someday have over for dinner! That doesn't reflect very well on hostess Laura, now, does it?)

      Perhaps there is some sort of deal being discussed...perhaps it's simple pragmatism on both sides.

      "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone."--Thomas Jefferson

      by hopesprings on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:04:58 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  NO...not that war! (none)
    The WARS (plural) of the Roses.

    The Plantagenets and the Lancasters.

    As in Shakespeare.

    Two families killing each other right and left (and hundreds of thousands of soldiers caught in the middle) to get in and out of power.

    "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone."--Thomas Jefferson

    by hopesprings on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 06:32:30 PM PST

  •  This shows she is a moderate (none)

    She did not call for nuking it. This shows that there are big differences between America's two political parties, and they will be able to compromise on a punishment involving conventional weapons like napalm, pain rays and gas that have been so effective in bringing freedom to Iraq.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
    In Washington, Republican Congressman Sam Johnson of Texas has recommended to President Bush that the U.S. consider attacking Syria with nuclear weapons. Johnson recently told a church gathering, "Syria is the problem. Syria is where those weapons of mass destruction are, in my view. You know, I can fly an F-15, put two nukes on 'em and I'll make one pass. We won't have to worry about Syria anymore."

    link

    blog updated 3-1
    one man's conspiracy is another man's business plan

    by DuctapeFatwa on Tue Mar 01, 2005 at 08:16:15 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site