Hillary: correct 'soft on terror' comment on "some people"

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Wednesday February 21, 2007 · 6:53 PM PST

2007/02/21 · 18:53

Dear Hillary,

I've defended you in five or so consecutive diaries against unfair attacks over your decision not to apologize for your four-and-a-half year ago vote on the Iraq war. So I hope you'll understand that I'm not coming at you now with an (unfortunately typical here) anti-Hillary fixation.

However, this time kos is right. The following statement, recorded live on video (see minute 31), is at best a mistake and you need to correct it:

I just want to underscore a point: some people may be running who will tell you that we don’t face a real threat from terrorism. I am not one of those. I think we do. I think we have serious enemies who wish to do us serious harm. [What] I object to is the way we have gone after them.

more . . .

Poll

90 votes Show Results

Hillary needs to apologize and correct her "some people" don't think we face "a real threat from terrorism" comment

90 votes Vote Now!

Hillary needs to apologize and correct her "some people" don't think we face "a real threat from terrorism" comment

Yes

64 votes

23 votes

Not sure, I don't know

3 votes

North of Florida takes a few swings at Hillary

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 18, 2007 · 1:33 AM PST

2007/02/18 · 01:33

The beating up of the Democratic Party's front runner continues, at uhh, dailykos. The latest is kos's frontpa--no, now here's Georgia10 (*see end of diary), and her formulation of why Hillary's wrong for not admitting she "was wrong" or "made a mistake" when she voted in October 2002 for authorization of use of military force against Iraq (AUMF).

23 Senators and 133 Congresspersons, you see, voted against AUMF, after all. And Georgia10 characterizes all 156 as follows (original links included):

They knew that this President could not be trusted with awesome war powers. They knew that a possible invasion would be catastrophic. They knew that pre-emptive war in the Mideast would have disastrous consequences.

Just off the top of my head, and first of all, I bet the following is a much more real-world take on what they were saying/thinking in late 2002:

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday February 15, 2007 · 12:48 PM PST

2007/02/15 · 12:48

Dear Senator Feingold,

In the midst of all the Hillary bashing going on at dailykos, and unfortunately for you, someone brought up your October 11, 2002 statement on why you opposed the authorization of force. And hey, that was great Russ, but I noticed some statements you made that look pretty lame and bonehead from a 2007 perspective. And, they led directly to the war in which a lot of people died for nothing.

I mean, you actually thought that Saddam possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction? (see bottom of diary) HA HA HA, Are you kidding me?!?! What kind of idiot were you? HE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T!

Do you realize Russ (do you realize??), it was butt for brain stupidity like that that led to the horrible Iraq invasion?? You're responsible for that, Russ, along with all the other Senators who bought that key piece of b.s. and persuaded others to believe it! (And how many did you persuade, I demand to know. Don't go into denials, just give me a number. And then I want you to apologize for doing that too, and to each of those Senators.)

Poll

109 votes Show Results

Russ Feingold _must_ apologize for buying the neocon cabal's bogus WMD claims

109 votes Vote Now!

Russ Feingold _must_ apologize for buying the neocon cabal's bogus WMD claims

Yes

13 votes

Well, I don't know about the _must_ part, but it would be nice.

7 votes

18 votes

No, and you need to apologize to Russ for even suggesting that he apologize, and I don't care if this is a snark diary, I've heard that excuse once too often.

53 votes

I say, my feathers are feeling ruffled. I won't vote on such unseemly piffle.

16 votes

I don't know, I'm not sure

2 votes

8 Simple Words! "I made a mistake because I was misled"

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday February 13, 2007 · 8:31 AM PST

2007/02/13 · 08:31

[Uninspired by Bill Press’s 'four simple words' parting shot this morning on Air America Radio]

Eight simple words. But why, why??, why can't you say them, Hillary?

John Edwards has already said them*, and nobody even noticed. That's probably what will happen with you too, Hillary. It'll just be water under the bridge, Hill, no one will call you a flip-flopper, or consultant-driven, or a panderer. All you have to say are the eight little words. Trust us on this one!

Don't you understand that no one is blaming you for being lied to and misled by the White House, CIA, Washington Post, New York Times, and the entire mainstream punditocracy. No one is blaming you for trusting a guy who seemed eminently trustworthy at the time, like Colin Powell. No one is blaming you, either, for thinking the President would do what you** and the October, 2002 resolution told him to do, to remove Saddam's purported WMD while sparing no effort to avoid war.

So then, uhh, just say you made a mistake.

Poll

44 votes Show Results

Hillary should say

44 votes Vote Now!

Hillary should say

"I made a mistake because I was misled"

19 votes

"I made a mistake because I didn't have the benefit of hindsight"

1 vote

"I made a mistake" (and I'm not gonna explain what I mean by that)

12 votes

"I didn't make a mistake, but with the benefit of hindsight I would've voted differently" (what she's already said)

7 votes

Some other statement on this matter

2 votes

I'm not sure, I don't know

3 votes

Regurgitating Republicans' anti-Hillary spin

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday February 11, 2007 · 4:00 PM PST

2007/02/11 · 16:00

This is so damn sad, but my gawd can markos and dailykos please stop regurgitating Republican anti-Hillary spin? It's been coming hot and heavy lately, from kos himself today, a day before from Devilstower, and a few days before that from kos again.

Let's go over the basic anti-Hillary 'argument' again:

Was she really cynically playing with American lives back in 2002, doing anything to get elected even when it meant backing authorization of force in Iraq, all the while knowing Bush's case was built on a pack of lies? Shouldn't it be obvious to all that now, after all these years, she should come clean and admit her cynical, almost criminal motives back then, admit she was sending young Americans to their deaths knowing there weren't any WMDs, knowing that Iraq was no threat to its region or the US?

Poll

39 votes Show Results

What should Hillary do?

39 votes Vote Now!

What should Hillary do?

What she's doing: say she would've voted 'no' on the authorization of force if she had had the info she does now, but that she would've voted 'yes' with the same info as she had in 2002

17 votes

Say she would've voted 'no' if she had the info she has now, and that she now admits it was 'wrong' to have voted 'yes' with the info that she had in 2002

14 votes

Some other answer

6 votes

Not sure, I don't know

2 votes

Hillary a lying Lieberman-on-Iraq for kos

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday February 08, 2007 · 6:37 PM PST

2007/02/08 · 18:37

Yesterday, dailyhowler.com wrote well (in FRAMING CLINTON!) on liberal blogs' new and ‘self-destructive for Democrats’ trend to lie like Republicans about Hillary Clinton. This kind of crap about major Democrats has already for a decade and a half been the norm both at the Republican National Committee and in its loyal servant, the mainstream press.

But do we really have to imitate them? But the howler finds AMERICAblog and then Atrios employing radical distortions of what she recently said in order to fuel their Hillary attack pieces. And kos's Tuesday attack on Hillary in McAuliffe channels Tancredo, while Hillary doesn't regret war vote would have fit right in with those two reality-bending attacks.

Does this make any damn sense at all on liberal, ‘for the Dems’ blogs?

Here's the worst of kos's inaccuracy, accusing Hillary both of dishonesty and of being a Lieberman on Iraq:

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Tuesday January 09, 2007 · 4:04 AM PST

2007/01/09 · 04:04

Nir Rosen, freelance writer and fellow at the New America Foundation is excellent on Iraq and America's wars to restore warlords to power in places like Afghanistan and Somalia. The following is from a January 6 CNN interview by John Roberts (below Rosen, the news in the Reuters article on the airstrikes and Somalia war that's not in the AP):

ROBERTS: Nir Rosen, what about that? I mean Somalia is the poster child for the words "failed state." Is there any way it's ever going to be stable?

ROSEN: It was getting stable. The Islamic courts were not radical. It actually succeeded in doing something amazing for Somalis, bringing peace to Mogadishu, getting rid of the warlords, letting people be able to walk in the streets at night without getting robbed or killed [emphasis added] and they brought stability not only to Mogadishu, ...

Poll

39 votes Show Results

The Somalia air strikes are (part of)

39 votes Vote Now!

The Somalia air strikes are (part of)

another tragic mess we've gotten ourselves into

25 votes

a brilliant move in the war on terror

3 votes

something else altogether

5 votes

Not sure or I don't know

6 votes

Will Bush’s Warmongering Hoover-ize the Republican Party?

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Saturday January 06, 2007 · 9:41 AM PST

2007/01/06 · 09:41

It seems to me that if President Bush starts a third war, this time with Iran, or if he goes through with what will be a disastrous surge in Iraq troops (i.e., escalation of the war), and especially if he does both, it may destroy the electability of the Republican Party for the foreseeable future.

It’s historic, what seems likely to happen: Bush will have made himself into the Foreign Policy Hoover of the Republican Party. . . .

Poll

81 votes Show Results

For how long after Bush will the U.S. not have a neoconservative President?

81 votes Vote Now!

For how long after Bush will the U.S. not have a neoconservative President?

It won't have any effect

8 votes

For the next couple of Presidential elections

27 votes

For the next three to five elections

22 votes

For even longer

12 votes

Forever

6 votes

Not sure, don't know

6 votes

Expose the Naked Emperor's Empire? Dems?

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday January 05, 2007 · 6:55 AM PST

2007/01/05 · 06:55

Well, of course not. But what's interesting is that in the next decade (or two) our nation's imperial reach will have to be soberly reassessed and reversed. As Democrats, we will be the party that can best come to grips with the moral requirement and increasingly practical need (the money just won't be there) to do both. More later on the consequences if we let neocolonial resistance and/or rival great power military/economic power force what our still democratic society should do itself.

These thoughts are inspired by Tom Engelhardt’s Tomdispatch of January 4, Doubling down on the imperial mission. Right now, and regardless of its position on President Bush's Iraq 'surge', the Democratic Party is not 'there' yet on scaling back the overall imperial mission, as the long quote beginning below (all emphasis mine) continues below the fold:

... a far more basic choice lurks - one rarely alluded to in the mainstream. If we Americans voted on such things - and, in truth, we vote on less and less that matters - the choice ...might be put this way:

Poll

10 votes Show Results

When will U.S. imperialism throw in the towel on controlling the Persian Gulf?

10 votes Vote Now!

When will U.S. imperialism throw in the towel on controlling the Persian Gulf?

Within 5 years

3 votes

Within 5 to 10 years

2 votes

Within 10 to 20 years

1 vote

Within 20 to 30 years

0 votes

More than 30 years from now

0 votes

More or less never

2 votes

Not sure, don't know

1 vote

I don't think the U.S. practices imperialism toward the Persian Gulf

1 vote

AFSC Says Commemorate NOW: 3,000 / 600,000+ Lives Lost

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Sunday December 31, 2006 · 6:32 PM PST

2006/12/31 · 18:32

This from American Friends Service Committee:

AFSC urges peace supporters to organize events in their hometowns on or soon after New Years Day, the day after the 3,000th U.S. military death in Iraq.

Together, we'll mourn all the lives lost in this war and call for the troops to come home.

Icasualties reports 3000 U.S. troop deaths in Iraq (updated hourly). Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis [also] have died in this war.

There are 294 actions in 46 states so far. Details of five vigils/commemorations in major cities are below...

Poll

11 votes Show Results

I'll be on the streets commemorating the terrible 'milestone'

11 votes Vote Now!

I'll be on the streets commemorating the terrible 'milestone'

Yes

8 votes

Probably

0 votes

Probably not

0 votes

3 votes

I have no idea

0 votes

Civilian Killing 2006: 322+ Palestinians, 17 Israelis

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Friday December 29, 2006 · 11:09 AM PST

2006/12/29 · 11:09

Disappeared in the US mainstream media, there was an explosion of killing by Israel in Palestine in the last half of 2006. This apparently the result of the capture of a single soldier, Israel Defense Forces Corporal Gilad Shalit, by Palestinian forces. The figures are in a report released yesterday by B'Tselem, an independent Israeli human rights organization:

...from the beginning of 2006 to December 27, Israeli security forces have killed 660 Palestinians, a figure more than three times the number of Palestinians killed in 2005, which was 197.

[continued below]

fairleft

Community (This content is not subject to review by Daily Kos staff prior to publication.)

Thursday December 21, 2006 · 9:04 AM PST

2006/12/21 · 09:04

... its purpose must not be to support the Iraqi government. It must support Iraq...

The International Crisis Group’s recommendations are outstanding, and deserve support by the Democratic Party leadership. So, let’s tell Senate Democrats leader Harry Reid to, in his usual unambiguous and forceful manner, reject the ISG and embrace the recommendations of the ICG. (By the way, other diaries have noted the ICG Report, most prominently Mash's, but I think mine is the first (amazingly, since the report has been out for more than 24 hours) to focus solely on the report).

The ICG Report, entitled After Baker-Hamilton: What to Do in Iraq, is long and detailed, but was boiled down to the following in an ICG press release:

If Iraq can be saved at this late date, it will require three ambitious and interrelated steps: ...

Poll

12 votes Show Results

The three state solution is

12 votes Vote Now!

The three state solution is

still the best way forward in Iraq.

4 votes

not a helpful proposal for Iraq.

5 votes

some other opinion, not sure, don't know

3 votes

Newer
Older

RSS

Hillary: correct 'soft on terror' comment on "some people"

North of Florida takes a few swings at Hillary

Russ, 3 little words: "I was wrong" (with poll!)

8 Simple Words! "I made a mistake because I was misled"

Regurgitating Republicans' anti-Hillary spin

Hillary a lying Lieberman-on-Iraq for kos

Rosen & Reuters on What's What in Somalia

Will Bush’s Warmongering Hoover-ize the Republican Party?

Expose the Naked Emperor's Empire? Dems?

AFSC Says Commemorate NOW: 3,000 / 600,000+ Lives Lost

Civilian Killing 2006: 322+ Palestinians, 17 Israelis

F#%& the ISG, I want my ICG!