Van Halen
"Right NOW!"

'...a few Code Pink types'? Wow that is pretty offensive to the many of us who opposed this war from the beginning and continue to be skeptical of Hillary's latest anti-war posturing.

Why does Hillary Clinton have to apoloigize for voting for the war in Iraq, instead of telling it as it was. She obviously got suckered in the big lies told by the Bush administration.

George W. Bush and his cronies used Hitler philosophy: Tell the biggest lies, repeatedly, and the gullible masses will cheer and step to the beat of the drums!

The real Hillary song:

www.hillarysong.blogspot.com

WeThePeopleThink.com wants to know what you think?

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, is that Bush's fault too? Lets allow people to take some personal responsibility for their votes. Weaseling out of voting histories for brownie points by claiming you were lied to is weak and shows questionable character. There are quotes and even video footage of Mistress Clinton, Bubba, Gore, et al claiming Iraq had WMD and was funding and involved in Muslim terrorist activites. They had all been saying that all along. I guess Bush was using mind control on them.

Leonard, you love to simplify what has happened over the last few years. Maybe you can't handle complexities very well. Just like Hitler? Come on, read some history books and learn a little more about the world before you attempt to paint the Bush Adminstration with such a broad brush...and with such contempt.

The TBA2007 website has the speeches to view. The reception that Obama received was incredible and his speech was very powerful. He's been getting huge diverse crowds throughout the country, it looks like he really will be able to bring us back together to get things done in Washington (and get us out of Iraq).

Continuing Hitler's philosphy, Bush's government will confront Congress with its version of the Enabling Act that would vest the cabinet with legislative powers. This act will allow for deviations from the constitution.
With this combination of legislative and executive power, Bush's government will suppress the political opposition. Rather than holding new presidential elections, Bush's cabinet will pass a law proclaiming the presidency dormant and transferr the role and powers of the head of state to Bush as Führer und Reichskanzler.

Give me a break you uneducated hippies!

To say that Hillary got suckered is a big exaggeration. A lot of Democrats weren't voting their conscience when they voted for the war in 2003. They knew it was stupid. They weren't being led blindly by Bush and his team. People like Hillary and Edwards and Kerry were making a tactical decision, based on how they wanted to be perceived by moderates in the future elections. And it blew up in their faces.
They were also trying to avoid what happened to Democrats who voted against Bush 1's first Gulf War. That war was comparatively short and successful and popular with the American people, and people who had voted against it ended up looking bad.
So if Hillary got "suckered," it's only because she was playing politics instead of doing her job, which is to do what she knows is right for the country.

Bush may not be responsible for the war in Iraq, nobody really is: but i diagnose him
of control freakism:
one of the symtom is to see optimism where people are dying;
The dems should find another candidate:
Hillary too stiff, another Margaret Thatcher, no improv, all script; personally i cant stand her:
Obama, the south will never vote for him:
other than that he s fine:

LEONARD, Hillary knew that we were being lied into Iraq. She had to know, because many people, including myself, knew at the time. We knew at least enough to seek more info, ie read the NIE. Their plan has always been to divide Iraq into 3 states, and then attempt to secure the Sunni state, which contains most of the oil. This has been the oil companies' #2 plan for nearly a century. (Plan #1 = keep the oil in Iraq in the ground until absolutely necessary.) Bill Clinton was chosen to be president over 20 years ago, precisely because he would carry out the same general foreign policy as the Bushies.

"Why does Hillary Clinton have to apoloigize for voting for the war in Iraq, instead of telling it as it was. She obviously got suckered in the big lies told by the Bush administration."

she could apologize for being so unbelievably stupid as to be suckered in the first place.

it's amazing how many folks today are trying to convince everyone (mostly themselves) that Bush & Co were just so darn convincing. some of us (many of us) found it sadly easy to see through the lies from the get-go.

maybe that's because Hitler was far from being the only politician to go with the big lie tactic. you think Daddy Bush told "the truth" when he was getting us into first Gulf War?

Hillary eats up the focus on Iraq. It reminds the middle-right that she's not really a liberal at all. What baffles me is why she gets a free pass on the ruinous policies the Clinton team pushed thru in their time in office. There were two choices in the late 1990's; we could be resonsible and negotiate trade agreements that ensured the environment would be respected and that working people all over the world (and especially those right here) could have a chance of retaining their dignity and have some security and peace of mind, OR we could listen to the BS that flowed from America's Think Tanks and The Chamber of Commerce and we could rape the workers of the world and destroy the environment in China for milleniums by gobbling up their garbage products (often made by children), while shutting down just about any factory in America that made quality products. Now instead of inventing products we have a new inventions called 'equity firms'. Where did all this start. With Clintons and NAFTA. What a wonderful world it could have been if those two dorks hadn't started us on the raod to extinction. And for that she gets a pass? I want to get ill when Hillary gives speaches where she acts like she represents the downtrodden and those who were treated unfairly by the Republicans. She represents America's Equity firms. Her biggest contirbutor in recent years has been Goldman-Sachs. The only thing that makes me more ill than Hillary is the feminist who gush over Hillary and will vote for her for one reason and one reason only. Will they wake up and act like unbiased adults before it's too late.

Hillary was suckered into it? Puh-leeze!

There were plenty of skeptical voices around, and plenty of experts exposing the Bush/Cheney lies in the run-up to the war. Anyone paying attention to the constant posturing and political squirming, the ever escalating belligerent rhetoric, and the ever-churning propaganda, would have known what's up. I certainly did!

I refuse to believe that anyone as connected and as intelligent as Hillary, got "suckered" into voting for this WAR. And yes, you all did vote for the WAR, John Kerry -- not just to back up Bush in his supposed U.N. negotiations. It was blindingly obvious what they were all voting for, and it was very obvious indeed what Bush intended to do.

The vote was all about bending to the political winds and the fear-mongering/faux-patriotic hysteria whipped up in the wake of 9/11. Any Democrat who voted for this war, demonstrated with that vote that they have no principles and no spine. And yes, that includes YOU, Hillary.

"Why does Hillary Clinton have to apoloigize for voting for the war in Iraq, instead of telling it as it was. She obviously got suckered in the big lies told by the Bush administration."

I don't think she got suckered. She just looked the other way like she did when Bill got suckered.

The cool thing is all you Washington insiders and friends of the Bush family will be out of work come election time. Insteading of posting blogs like these, why don't you polish up your resumes so you can starting looking for new jobs.

Which candidate can turn back the tax breaks for the rich...which candidate can get universal health care coverage...which candidate can get social security reformed..which candidate can restore the middle class...which candidate can help the lower income people have respectable lives...which candidate can get the homeless a home...which candidate can get the troops home??????ANSWER>>>unless there is a majority of democrats large enough to block a filibuster in congress, then none of the candidates will accomplish these goals...the republicans will stonewall every attempt to get a bill passed unless there are enough votes where they can't stop the vote. If you want change, it has to start in congress and the white house, or we will remain in the stalemated morass we are currently in, with a congress unable to over ride the minority.

"Their plan has always been to divide Iraq into 3 states, and then attempt to secure the Sunni state, which contains most of the oil. This has been the oil companies' #2 plan for nearly a century. (Plan #1 = keep the oil in Iraq in the ground until absolutely necessary.)" Iconoclast421

Aside from the fact that the Sunni areas have almost no oil, the rest of what you say may be true, but it is secondary to the overriding object of the neocons:

to create a joint empire in the Middle East, with Israel as a partner, along the lines of what the U.S. was up to in all of Latin America throughout most of the 20th Century.
If you can see that, then all of Bush & Co. foreign policy makes total sense.

Ankleless Annie needed Kerry's botox in that silly "Sopranos" parody: Giuliani ought to be offended, and Tancredo, well, he's a Presbyterian. Can't imagine why the top song wasn't "What's Love Got To Do With It" or "Come Home Bill Bailey."

This article is planted by the CIA. Waste of words, CIA freaks.

Sorry, but I see no relationship whatsoever to the campaign and the song! What is the campaign trying to say? They could certainly do better than that song. If not, they should just walk away because Hill is not going to be the candidate anyway.

How can we decrease Hillary's so-called lead over the great Sen. Obama?

I don't care what Hillary's theme song is, I think her platforms are outstanding. I think she is more experienced than any other candidate for the Presidency -- Republican or Democrat and I really hope this country will get over its sexism toward Hillary as a woman. But whether it does or not, there are enough women voters out there to put her in office. And women are tired of seeing men win every single race just because they are men.
Nothing against any of the other Democrats, but they just aren't as tough as Hill and we need someone tough to win this presidency.
Hillary, you go girl.

Obama and Clinton are just triangulating Ivy League lawyers representing the elite. Edwards, who lacks the baggage of his two rivals, is the only REAL progressive.

I said this in response to the "Sack" column. It also applies to Edwards, Obama and a lot of the Repulsicans as well, so I'll repeat it.

Bill & Hillary are attorneys. Attorneys are the scum of the earth. Attorneys who go into politics are sh*t. People go to law school, become lawyers and learn the best ways to circumvent the law. Then they go into politics and write laws that they KNOW can be circumvented, enforce the law as they choose in executive positions, or make decisions as they choose as judges. Then they laugh up their sleeves as they and their associates bank all the money they plunder as a result of their corruption. Yeah we need another corrupt attorney to head up the next administration, NOT!!!

So far I'm for Edwards. The Clinton campaign won't tell me what corporations are behind her, so trust is the issue with me. All this John Wayne "never admit that you are wrong" is old-fashioned, polarizing and non-progressive. I'm just afraid of no change if HRC gets in. It's time for some of us baby-boomers to get out of the way.

So far I'm for Edwards. The Clinton campaign won't tell me what corporations are behind her, so trust is the issue with me. All this John Wayne "never admit that you are wrong" is old-fashioned, polarizing and non-progressive. I'm just afraid of no change if HRC gets in. It's time for some of us baby-boomers to get out of the way.

I'm 89 years old and have been a "political animal" ever since I campaigned (just out of short pants) for Henry A. Wallace. Hillary is strictly an opportunist who seems to feel that the country owes her the top job. If she apologized that she goofed when signing for War, then perhaps we could forgive her. We all make mistakes.But that picture of her signing that statement will live for me forever. As it will for the kids dying and getting wounded for a war that no one knows why we are fighting. My only logical thought is that big business wants Iraq oil and we will kill and be killed to get it for them.

"Southern Girl" asserts that men win because they are men, so now a woman should win because she is a woman! That's answering stupidity with stupidity.

There are many millions [that is no exaggeration] of us men who are perfectly willing to support and vote for and have a woman as president. But you don't get it, do you? We don't support THAT woman, or the NY HillBillaries altogether.

As for being the "most experienced"--in what? We've already had our "two-for-the-price-of-one" election, if you are old enough to remember 1992 and the subsequent events.
Your "you go girl" is so teeny-bopper silly that, well, I won't even mention it.

What boos?

The favorite nonargument made to excuse all of the blunders of Bush and company is to say that it was Bill Çlinton's fault. The unalterable fact is American workers were doing do much better during the Clinton years than they have been for the last six years. There's no way to spin a yarn about how (1) stagnating wages, (2) outsourcing jobs, (3) declining and disappearing benefits, (4) stoppage of health insurance help, (5) keeping the minimum wage down, (6) watching middle class
kids being squeezed out of the opportunity for college, (7) breaking unions by claiming all of these slaps at working folk are ALL Clinton's fault. History is clear about which party has stuck it to labor whenever it's had the chance, and it hasn't been Clinton's. My goodness, you old-time conservatives must really be running scared if you have to actually make any kind of appeal to the peasants who work for a monthly check. Generally, you're far too busy dumping all over the American workers to come up with any kind of empathy for them.

The favorite nonargument made to excuse all of the blunders of Bush and company is to say that it was Bill Çlinton's fault. The unalterable fact is American workers were doing do much better during the Clinton years than they have been for the last six years. There's no way to spin a yarn about how (1) stagnating wages, (2) outsourcing jobs, (3) declining and disappearing benefits, (4) stoppage of health insurance help, (5) keeping the minimum wage down, (6) watching middle class
kids being squeezed out of the opportunity for college, (7) breaking unions by claiming all of these slaps at working folk are ALL Clinton's fault. History is clear about which party has stuck it to labor whenever it's had the chance, and it hasn't been Clinton's. My goodness, you old-time conservatives must really be running scared if you have to actually make any kind of appeal to the peasants who work for a monthly check. Generally, you're far too busy dumping all over the American workers to come up with any kind of empathy for them.

All I am saying is she def lost my vote..CELINE YUK... If you are going for a theme song by a Canadian pick Anne Murray, You Needed Me or A Little Good News....
The TRUE Canadian Diva.....

Many have commented an the lack of political acumen from Hillary compared to Bill, and the Soprano's "spoof" highlights this clearly. While Hillary chooses a soppy chick song, Bill's choice was the one that should have been, "I'm a believer". Upbeat, positive....."When I see her face". Maybe the Right is right when they say she'd be a bad President- If she can't even pick a fun interesting song....

You guys better wake up. We are not voted in by ballot but by blood line. So, it looks like this: bush, clinton, bush, clinton...you need to look up how many deaths were really under the clinton era and it wasn't just vince foster either. did everyone seem to forget that some things from the white house went missing after they left office?

Hello, The best choice and we all know it is Al Gore

America needs the strong and brilliant President to back America. Watch out Republican's incitement. What is wrong you Americans, why you don't take what you have now? Who else is better than Hillary Clinton? Edwards is too weak, Obama is too inexperienced, over proud of himself, crude political perfermances and too many mistakes as immature politician. I would advise to Obama, go back to learn the reality, find out yourself more, build up career for your Country, wake up from the dream of lucky chance and then you may compete with same level of candidates 10 years later. How about with Rice?

There may be alot of people in the U.S. who do not understand why their military is in Iraq but the people who led the effort and the people who supported the move, including Clinton, do know. It was clear to people familiar with the history of the region all along that possession of WMD cannot be the reason, because knowledge of the same WMD 10-20 years prior posed no problem for the U.S. while U.S. was tactically supporting Iraq. This seems to be appreciated by more people now.

The logical underlying reason likely was an alignment of often diverse interests present in the U.S. to take on this war: 1) To reverse a decline in influence resulting from decades of opportunistic policies and restore it by force through a strong U.S. military presence in the Middle East, 2) Curtail Saddam's regime and military from gaining enough strength to pose a credible threat to Israel's military policies that are fundamentally in conflict with the Arab/Muslim masses in the region, 3) Do something powerful and impressive in reaction to 9/11 to repair superpower image. 4) probably additional reasons that I do not appreciate

Combination of these interests, and those who may have been still be believing the WMD threat story, clearly added up to a slight majority of the U.S. population when Bush was reelected in 2004. Clinton, being a senator from New York, had to be especially sensitive to 2). Clinton may be culpable for her part in supporting this war but she is hardly alone with 62 million people endorsing the war in the 2004 election.

My vote would go for Obama as the main hope for steering America in a more positive direction. I would gladly take back the Bill Clinton years in a heartbeat.

We are in World War IV with radical Islam. We can lose it in the polling booths in our elections just as we lost in Vietnam. We were not defeated militarily there. The difference then and now is that the Vietnamese were not going to follow us home. The jihadists will.
They attacked us beginning in 1979 and continued right along with impunity. They got the idea that the U.S. would not react. 911 was a wake-up, the Pearl Harbor of this century. Perhaps we should not have gone into Iraq, but we are there. A defeat there will encourage our enemies, especially the jihadists and discourage what friends we have. A short term gain may result in long term loss. The same applies to illegal immigration-short term economic gains for some-for businesses who hire cheap labor-(losses for others) and short term political gains (more dependents for government handouts and more Democrat voters). The same goes for cheap imported products now, but with serious and increasing trade imbalance that will cost us dearly later.
Actions do have consequences.
Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 | Source

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002 | Source

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002 | Source

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 | Source

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 | Source

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 | Source

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 | Source

Let's see jam, you wrote, "maybe that's because Hitler was far from being the only politician to go with the big lie tactic. you think Daddy Bush told "the truth" when he was getting us into first Gulf War?"

Are you actually being stupid enough to say Saddam Hussein did not seize Kuwait, and did not pose a threat to Saudi Arabia, Iran, Israel and other neighboring countries? If not, what big lie did G. H. W. Bush need to tell for the first Gulf War to take place? To most educated, rational human beings that one was an easy call.

His failure to take Saddam out at that time sent a message to that part of the world that we did not have the sense or the fortitude to do the job right. We paid for the weakness that implied on 9/11 and we will continue paying for it unless we decisivly respond to such acts of war or terrorism. When instigators of these attacks want to "negotiate" it is only to delay actions against them in order to strengthen themselves and prepare for their next attack. Wake up people!