l

o

l

"it only exposes you as a dupe of radical islamists who are counting on fools like you to help them destroy America from within."

Except for two words being changed, that was the slur used for decades.

lyle - you need to remove "pink" from your name. P R O is just a Cold Warrior who can't live without a Devil to fight.

"it only exposes you as a dupe of radical islamists who are counting on fools like you to help them destroy America from within."

Except for two words being changed, that was the slur used for decades.

lyle - you need to remove "pink" from your name. PRO is just a Cold Warrior who can't live without a Devil to fight.

If you can't end the war, then at least bring the troops home. Bush has extended tours to 15 months alot of troops are out there for 22 months away from their family. they should only be there for a year, and to me that is too much. people need a break from the stress out there. This country needs to start caring about its people.

P R O: Your 05:55AM is typical of the link you refer. As you and the link mention rant and rave, radical Islam, and other things, are only designed to muddy the water. Those of us that oppose this war, in no way are suggesting surrender in any manner, shape or form. We honestly believe getting our troops out of Iraq will not only save life and limb of our military forces, but innocent Iraqs as well. There are not any safe ways to get out, what should be discussed is the safest possible way.

The Truth is Complex said: "'political reality' is another dangerous lunatic and quivering bedwetter. The 'forces of radical Islam' are in the government we put in place in Iraq, you moron. The Sunni insurgents we are arming in iraq are joining al queda in droves -- our presence there is creating more jihadists then we can kill, as our generals admit."

Didn't your therapist warn you that projecting your own mental deficiencies and personal problems onto others only exposed them for all to see and makes you appear ridiculously foolish? Didn't he explain to you that insults are the first refuge of the logically and intellectually defeated? Didn't he tell you that irrational raving was a poor way to express your vacuous thinking? That flaunting your geo-strategic ignorance in a public forum was a poor way to overcome your low self esteem? That mainlining MoveOn.Org's irrational hatespeak koolaid for too long would eventually burn out your genetically limited mental capacity?

In your delusional world of self-loathing foolishness, you believe I 'm a "moron" because I can see through your myopic ravings about what you think is going on in Iraq, and realize that your assertions in no way support your advocacy of a massive geo-strategic, political, military, political, moral and economic capitulation to the very forces of radical Islam that you say are present in Iraq and that are eagerly waiting for your idiotic point of view to prevail from their control centers in Tehran, Damascus and Waziristan.

I'll try to simplify reality for you:

Newsflash #1: America will either stand in Iraq and defend its vital access to crude oil, or turn it over to the control of its worst enemies and suffer the economic devastation that will follow. It's just that simple and no amount of your mindless raving and low minded insults will limit the real world risks and consequences of a total capitulation in Iraq.

Newsflash #2: Your geo-strategic ignorance does not make me a "moron", it only exposes you as a dupe of radical islamists who are counting on fools like you to help them destroy America from within.

Newsflash #3: Truth is only complex to intellectually dishonest people like yourself, who can't see the big geo-strategic picture in the Middle East, and can't make a logical case for their own point of view, and who resort to pathetic insults when confronted with overwhelming logic that destroys their hopelessly misguided view of the world.

Newsflash #4: Your personal lust for ridiculing others and self-destruction is no reason for any sane person to embrace your point of view. Before making yourself look any more foolish, you really should visit the link below and get a clue about the true risks and consequences of your surrender non-strategy in iraq.

http://www.politicalrealityonline.com/The_Bottom_Line.html

Many people go off of the hatred of Hillary. Who can say that they have made the correct decision at all times, even when it was MAJOR? No one can. People you still miss the big picture. War and the threat of attack has gone on since the neighboring nations of Isreal in Biblilcal times. So what if both Clinton and Edwards voted for the war, Obama was not in the Senate, so it would be easy to say that he opposed the war from the beginning. He had no knowledge of what was going on. All we see is politics and the propaganda that is put before us. We don't know all of the interworkings, neither should we forget again the potential threats. Yes they were briefed and yes others who read the report still voted and gave authorization. However Bush took it to another level, as he has continued to lie to the people. Take a look at his portfolio of OIl. Now you wonder why the gas prices are so high.

Hillary is better qualified on all fronts to become the next President of the U.S. She has the experience of running the White House with her Husband Bill Clinton, who by the way left a huge surplus for Bush to run throuhg like a kid in a candy store and put us in a major deficit along with his republican party. Hillary already has strong relationships with key states leaders around the world. She knows the battles of dealing with Republicans when it comes to health care. It is interesting how Edwards and Obama want to push her (Hillary's) agenda of Health care, as if it were their own idea (NOT). She lived through the attack of 9/11 in the state she serves in. Neither one of them did not. She had to come to the rescue of her people in New York, not Edwards and Obama.

Hillary has the relationships with key people of major organizations in this country and despite what people say about her being polarizing, she along draws more attention, just like Lady Diana. Keep it real people, just because you don't like someone does not mean that they are not the best for the job. Put personal feelings aside and look at pure experience. She alone has it all. There is so much more to state, but I hope you realize she (Hillary) is the best choice for President.

Our government needs to change, not continue on with the same ideological path. According to the Borgen Project, we have already spent $340 billion on the Iraq war. Endorsing other campaigns as fruitless as the Iraq war is a mistake.

To really get at the root of national security, global poverty needs to be addressed. The problem isn't terrorism, it's the extreme poverty that people live in that fosters the ideology. Coupled with our foreign policy, no good can come out of it all. If our government really wanted to halt terror, war and genocide, it would spend money on helping lesser-developed nations grow economically. Supporting the Millennium Development Goals to end global poverty would be more beneficial than starting wars all over the Middle East and creating more anti-Western sentiment.

Nurse Ratched, Obama (rhymes with Osama) and the Breck girl.

I pity Iraq if any of the three get elected.

You think it's bad there now?

Jim D. in Fl. - and Edwards response to all that should've been "The bottom line is 4 1/2 years is about the amount of time since you've shown leadership on this issue. The American people deserve leadership on this issue now, not just in the past."

Hey, let's just run as fast as we can from Iraq and pretend there will be no consequences whatsoever to running in the face of the enemy. Let's just keep screaming that the public wants out! Everyone knows that if we keep screaming that that we can make it true! And let's keep screaming that Bush is worse than Hitler, that he intentionally wanted us to fail, etc., etc. If we keep screaming that, it will become true as well.

I say keep screaming lies and we'll turn lies into the truth!

Hey, let's just run as fast as we can from Iraq and pretend there will be no consequences whatsoever to running in the face of the enemy. Let's just keep screaming that the public wants out! Everyone knows that if we keep screaming that that we can make it true! And let's keep screaming that Bush is worse than Hitler, that he intentionally wanted us to fail, etc., etc. If we keep screaming that, it will become true as well.

I say keep screaming lies and we'll turn lies into the truth!

"Hillary did not vote to go war"

True, only because there has been no Declaration of War.

She voted to give the President a blank check, knowing full well what he intended to do. This Administration did everything but put a neon sign on the front of the White House saying "Here we come!"

Her vote walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

You may as well face up to it lylepink, she cast the die and crossed the Euphrates and Tigris in one roll.

bsimon: "-ad-nauseum-". Type in HillaryHub on Google and then press the Enter key and Viola, you have the positions Hillary takes on just about every issue you can think about. Newsweek has a few articles from time to time that are worth reading. I am sure you can also find pieces from the American Spectator guy, Terrell, and David Bossie, who worked for Dan Burton for years putting out false information about Hillary. These are some of the "Hillary Haters" that supply the right-wingers their talking points. You can also find very few that take the time to look and see for themselves what Hillary does or does not support, and simply rely on the talking points. Look at all the candidates and make an informed decision is all I'm asking. I know enough to support Hillary now as before.

"Over the last few months we've been closely monitoring the positioning of the Democrats' Big 3 -- Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- on the war in Iraq."

Chris - if these vote-seeking pols would ever make sense and maintain some consistency, why would you have to "closely monitor the positions"? Are things changing so rapidly over there? Are new sources of data going unread at an urgent pace? Or more likey, more palatable lies are being concocted to cover dishonesty and manipulation?

why can't one of these charlatans simply say the truth, which is "I want to win the election bad enough that I will say whatever I think wins the most votes".

then any future alterations are perfectly understandable.

BTW, I would never support ANYONE who can be fooled by GWB. I had zero access to the NIE, I am not among the political insiders, and I don't have a degree in international politics and I knew the war in Iraq was a STRATEGIC and POLITICAL mistake, not b/c Saddam shouldn't have been removed but b/c we did it the WRONG way. I mean, what idiot thinks that you can take out a government without planning for the aftermath, without MAJOR international support (political) to convince any dissenters that this is what EVERYONE wants, and maintain peace and order? Oh, wait, I know who. The same person that America chose as its leader...TWICE.

Unbelievable. "I don't care if they made the wrong decision in the past, they are promising me they will make the right decision in the future." You are probably the same people that voted for GWB in '04 then turned around and voted him down in the polls two months later. I can't stand GWB, but it seems that people love to elect those that are telling the least amount of truth.

FH, stop demanding from us Libs what we can't possible supply - the truth. you will have to accept that we only offer lies and propaganda. get used to it, we have until 2009 before anyone calls us on it. do you even hear anything about all the promises we made before the last election? you won't, we are immune from rationality and truth. Our leaders can't forge anything of substance for the american people. We won the election but now have no idea what to do about it. Is there any way you can arrange to almost lose the war right before the next election so we can profit from america's loss? We will need it with our shallow, vote-getting policies. A recession would also be good. Please try to ignore all the corrupt Dem pols in the meantime, all the spending, the taxes and the military insults. Dirty Harry reid is not much but he is ours, for now.

What matters to me is that none of the three oppose US involvement in Afghanistan,supported at inception by then Senator Edwards and Senator Clinton. Senator Obama says he is opposed to "dumb" wars. The US since 1776, (when thanks to assistance of freedom loving Louis XVI of France, the colonies were saved from horrific fate of Canada, New Zealand, Austrailia, etc.) has been involved in more wars than any other nation. Only War in history US did not start was World War II, which would have never happened if racist President Woodrow Wilson hadn't decided he wanted to make the world, but not the former Confederate States, "safe for Democracy."

George N. Spitz
www.georgespitz.com
212 348 2225
gnspitz1@msn.com

To Lincoln Quote

The quote is a fraud. If you can't accept the truth, I don't know what to tell you.

"Pedigree for this quote is often asserted by pointing to the 1950 Lincoln Encyclopedia, compiled by Archer H. Shaw, which "authenticates" the quote by citing a purported 1864 letter from Lincoln to one Col. William F. Elkins found in Emanuel Hertz's 1931 book, Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait. However, this source is fraudulent: Hertz was taken in by a forgery, and Shaw, a sloppy compiler, added the bogus letter to his encyclopedia (along with several other pieces of Lincoln apocrypha) without verifying its authenticity. As historian Merrill Peterson noted in Lincoln in American Memory: "

lylepink splits hairs in explaining
"This is why I keep reminding you and others "Hillary did not vote to go war". That statement is 100% accurate, and no way can that "FACT" be changed."

As has been pointed out - ad nauseum - her vote demonstrates a failure to properly analyze the potential consequences. It was obvious to me that Bush was itching to go to war in Iraq, and I'm just an average joe that pays attention to the news. Senator Clinton's vote, firstly, and failure to adequately explain it, secondly, demonstrate the inability on her part to effectively determine the consequences of her actions. She, like so many other politicians, apparently fails to understand the electorates' desire for a politician that 1) stands for something and 2) makes it clear what it is they stand for. Thus far, Senator Clinton fails on both tests.

I think Bush put something in my K-rations (MREs) to keep me stupid. I keep trying to learn new things but all my knowledge ends in 1969. Has anything happened since then? I do not wish to remain this ignorant forever. they told me the Army would make a man of me, but it really just made me want to be a real man. Can anyone tell me what men do? do they blog all day about the same old tired stupid stuff which reaches no one who cares and everyone who is already cracked?

The confusion is starting again. won't someone be my friend? without this blog I have little else.

Clinton = Flip Flopper
Edwards = Slimeball
Obama = Hypocrit

Of all the Dems, Joe Biden makes the most sense.

Chris,

I've read The Fix since it's inception. If you are affiliated with a major news outlet and running this blog as a non-partisan source of commentary, it's important for you to please refrain from framing issues in a pro-Clinton light. I'm by no means hostile to the Senator, but if you take a look at the archives it isn't tough to note an insufficiently-checked sympathy for Clinton. I take it you're already trying to do avoid bias, which is why your sympathies are subtly rather than explicitly voiced. Still, it makes your analysis less convincing. Best wishes -

Thousands of young Americans have been killed in Iraq. Many more, tens of thousands, have been maimed -- the rest of their lives ruined.

Who knows how many tens of thousands of Iraqis have been killed. How many countless thousands of children have been killed?

But maybe, just maybe, this venture is not a failure.

It appears to be a disaster, a nasty quagmire with no good way out.

But maybe, just maybe, this is exactly what Bush and Cheney and Rice had in mind all along.

Chaos and anarchy. Civil war in Iraq.

The Bush family has long, well-known ties in the oil industry, Cheney came from Halliburton, Rice from Chevron.

Maybe the goal was to keep the Iraqi oil IN THE GROUND.

What happens to prices when supply is disrupted? It's basic economics. Supply and demand.

Where are oil prices today? Who is benefitting from this so-called "war"?

Bush, Cheney and Rice all come from the oil industry and it is precisely the oil industry that is benefitting from the chaos, anarchy and bloodshed in Iraq.

Bush appears absurdly inept. But is he? Or is he getting exactly what he wants?

Also, keep in mind that Cheney continues -- to this day -- to be compensated by Halliburton. It is "deferred" compensation but one day he will reap millions.

Lt.Pronin: I don't remember the vote total, but I think it was seventy something for. Check out the Bill and you will find that what the Senators voted for was not what GW and his pals did by going to war. The POTUS has absolute power in many things, including pardons, and the Congress has the power of the purse, and by cutting funds off from the war is the only way I can see that will stop this useless slaughter of our troops, and by doing so it is supporting our troops by getting them out. This idea of supporting the troops by funding their stay there is stupid. This is why I keep reminding you and others "Hillary did not vote to go war". That statement is 100% accurate, and no way can that "FACT" be changed.

I am so afraid. What if fox news keeps getting bigger and better and CNN and all the other lefty news organizations go out of business, just like Air America.

Where will I get my liberal ideas then? how will I keep up the pace of posting hollow talking points every three minutes. I am so afraid that liberal-lefty bloggers will go the way of the dinosaur and Jimmy carter - hello oblivion and irrelevance.

the truth is not your friend if you want Democrats to win. I will continue my efforts to obfuscate. Please continue to be fooled, just like me. I know it is easy to say, what with my limited inteligence, but you must also have faith. not in God, in government.

In answer to the specific question, the 'Present' is obviously most important (as usual): US troops and Iraqis are dying NOW, tax dollars are being thrown away NOW, our national credibility is continuing to be diminished NOW, terrorist leaders are recruiting suicide bombers NOW, etc., etc.
This gives Edwards a slight advantage in his rhetoric, in that he won't have to compile an actual voting record on this issue between now and the election (just as Obama didn't in 2002, I might add).
But Obama was right: even if all the WMD hype was provably true, we had no reason to attack a sovereign nation. Edwards didn't recognize this at the time (leadership?) and Clinton still doesn't!

Drindl: so far the data supports your supposition that both DC and NYC are centre-right in terms of their thinking. The slate of doomed R candidates emerging from such "think tanks" helps cement that perception.

Hey, who do you support for the D nomination? Not sure I've ever seen you lobby for one versus another. HRC is a part of your local landscape I believe but I'm sure you're as concerned as I am about her associated negatives.

Future please.

When Clinton says "If George Bush doesn't end this war before he leaves office...when I'm president, I will," what does she mean?

Is it:
A) Peace in Iraq
B) No more US troops in Iraq
C) No more US money or troops in Iraq

Because quite frankly all I hear is status quo from the Republicans (bad) and a Nixonian 'I have a plan to end the war' from the Democrats. Of course they don't have Nixon's cojones to say they have a plan, just that they'll end it (which implies a plan.) I would feel a lot better if I felt that their plan for ending it had more in common with the conventional definition of a plan then the plan used to get into Iraq.

Where's that third party that I keep reading about that will spring up in 2008?

The past, present, and future breakdown is cute, but frankly, inaccurate.

It's not fair to characterize Hilary as the only candidate with a sound plan for the future. Both she and Obama are in favor of a phased redeployment of our troops. Edwards is the backward-looking one, as he favors withdrawal. Obama has past, present, and future on this one. Clinton, admittedly, loses in terms of the past(it's awkward that she supported the war, no matter how she spins it), but in any case the future is what matters.

Libby...Nation of Laws....Cheney...Nation of Laws....Warrantless domestic spying...Nation of laws...extraordinary rendition (do we know its only been used on foreigners-domestic victims would never live to tell)....Nation of Laws...Paris Hilton....Um, ow well

Will Dubya pardon Paris before Libby.

Both broke the law. Both are minor celebrities.

Any other 20 something breaks probation...the do not pass go, go directly to County Jail.

Why should Libby be any different. Perjury is perjury even if he worked in the land of relavistic make believe-The White House.

Obama is a media creation and deceives supporters. Yes, he opposed the war - but after elected - voted to FUND IT!
Edwards was correct to call Hillary and Obama on their "No" vote because if they were leaders they would have encouraged supporters to contact senators to oppose the bill - like Dodd did.
But Hillary and Obama were silent - and kept their intended vote a secret until they voted.
That's not leadership, Obama!

'no amnesty' writes
"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is something incredibly revealing about the widespread demands by right-wing pundits and commentators that the President pardon Scooter Libby."

Indeed. Novak's piece on Bush 'standing by the wrong guy' is indicative of the rank hypocrasy & selective 'morality' evidenced by 'conservatives' these days. While I agree with him that Bush should no longer back Gonzales, I disagree that Libby deserves a pardon. What happened to standing up for the rule of law?

'no amnesty' writes
"At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is something incredibly revealing about the widespread demands by right-wing pundits and commentators that the President pardon Scooter Libby."

Inded. Novak's piece on Bush 'standing by the wrong guy' is indicative of the rank hypocrasy & selective 'morality' evidenced by 'conservatives' these days. While I agree with him that Bush should no longer back Gonzales, I disagree that Libby deserves a pardon. What happened to standing up for the rule of law?

The real politicts of the Iraq War is who will get the blame for the disaster that happens WHEN, not IF, America leaves Iraq. That is the worst consequences of the LOST War in Iraq will be felt by Americans when America finally leaves Iraq. Furthermore, the longer America stayes in Iraq the worse will be those consequences. The current and future politicts of the Iraq War is will those who started this war get the blame for those consequences OR by holding out until being forced to leave Iraq, will Bush and the Republicans be able to shift the blame for the worst consequences of their lost and unncessary war onto those who will get us out of Iraq.

Of course, Fox News isn't a real "news" outlet, so it's not required to report the actual news.

Fox spent half as much time covering the Iraq war than MSNBC during the first three months of the year, and considerably less than CNN, according to the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

The difference was more stark during daytime news hours than in prime-time opinion shows. The Iraq war occupied 20 percent of CNN's daytime news hole and 18 percent of MSNBC's. On Fox, the war was talked about only 6 percent of the time.

Remember, there is no more reliable constituency for Republicans than Fox News viewers (they went for Bush 88-7, more so than conservatives, gun owners, evangelicals, and war supporters).

And the network that caters to these deluded can't possibly show them what reality looks like.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is something incredibly revealing about the widespread demands by right-wing pundits and commentators that the President pardon Scooter Libby. Put simply, this is a crackpot view, an opinion that in any rational universe people would be embarrassed to express publicly. It is a testament to the paradigm-warping power of the right wing echo chamber that so many mainstream figures feel comfortable calling for such an unprecedented and unwarranted remedy.

'Is there one person here that doesn't think I am the biggest loser and idiot?'

no zouk, there isn't.

funny how wingers keep calling that Lincoln quote a fraud --as the WaPo's Gore hater and Weekly Standard columnist did -- but then offer one book as proof of that, which contradicts several other books...

'Fortunately, after some burrowing in the univ. library, I was able to confirm its authenticity. Here it is, with more surrounding context:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end. It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . . It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war. God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

The passage appears in a letter from Lincoln to (Col.) William F. Elkins, Nov. 21, 1864.

For a reliable pedigree, cite p. 40 of The Lincoln Encyclopedia, by Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY). That traces the quote's lineage to p. 954 of Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait, (Vol. 2) by Emanuel Hertz (Horace Liveright Inc, 1931, NY).

Based on about several hrs. of research, it appears Lincoln has been extensively SANITIZED FOR OUR PROTECTION. The Hidden Lincoln; from the Letters and Papers of William H. Herndon, by Emanuel Hertz (Viking Press, 1938, NY), details how Herndon (Lincoln's lifelong law partner) collected an extensive oral history and aggregated much of Lincoln's writings into a collection that served as the basis for many "authoritative" books on Lincoln.

islam/muslims are as foreign to many americans as christians or jewish people are. i believe we have reached the point in our culture where studying or practicing any form of spiritual discipline is nonexistent for many. i think this is why understanding a people who live by a spiritually based foundation is difficult to explain. bush thinks he has the only spiritual answer for the entire earth but he is very wrong. frankly he is just as much an EXREMIST as those he claims we are fighting. it is in the best interest of the u.s. government leadership to keep america in the dark so that we will support their reasoning to continue the war. they use scare tactics and its working on many americans. this administration will point their finger at the most convenient target. first it was wmd, no evidence, then it was hussein, he was a monster, and now it is to blame religious radicals. this does not mean they are correct. the islamic sects in iraq have been fighting for centuries and america will NEVER prevail/win. as far as terrorism is concerned, it has existed since time began and america will NEVER eliminate it from this world. when osama bin laden is dead another extremest will appear. the best we can do is live as peacefully as possible to serve as an example to the rest of humanity. we were angry and defensive after the attacks but as we have found our reasons for waging this war had nothing to do with iraq.

'An entire column that attempts to reframe it as the D's problem seems wildly dishonest.'

Thank you Judge. This seems to be the current weird press tactic, trying to blame the iraq war on democrats. Really weird and twisted -- not to mention transparent. But they'll go to any lengths to try to smear Dems.

NYTimes mag even had a cover story called 'Hillary's War'. .. incredible.

Is there one person here that doesn't think I am the biggest loser and idiot?

could all of my supporters please indicate that you like having me around. If you ignore me, it hurts my feelings. Please respond. the least you can do is fight with me about pointless nonsense. Everyone else I know does. I always thought it was my lack of hair but am beginning to wonder.

'lies' -- hey zouky -- why don't you ever use your own name anymore? Everyne knows it's you -- you and your obssession with harry reid -- so freaking transparent it's pathetic.

Mark in Austin writes
"It will be interesting to see if the Ds will now oppose Baker-Hamilton when the Rs begin to support it."

How very cynical of you. I wonder the same thing, though I hadn't thought to, until you mentioned it. Given that they haven't mentioned B-H for 6 months or so, perhaps enough time has passed that they can now be against the plan.

All of the candidates have some foolishness in their background. And to not expect that there will be attack ads aimed at whoever is running is naive.

In 2008, with 160,000 or more boots on the ground in Iraq (at this point, logistically we could not get the troops out of Iraq if that had the full support of the cowbay in the white house.), the electorate will be looking for something they have not had in 6 or so years-competence. The attack ads won't matter.

Folks just want it over. Colin Powell certainly the most competent of the whole lot

But heck, on more important news. Dubya met with the Pope today...Can't figure why-its not an election year where he needs to co-op the dim American Bishops, on the basis of a pro-life sales pitch, to support a president who advocates torture and dennial of basic human rights as foreign policy.

Maybe he wanted papal intercession with the Big 'Unitary Leader' in the sky to solve the Iraq problem.

In one sense of consistency, we expect liberals to be allergic to personal responsibility and to seek every opportunity to be the victim. Here, Senator Clinton does not let us down.

Her story now is that she voted for the war, but it's really not her fault that she did.

George Bush lied to her.

According to Clinton, she thought that the resolution she was voting for meant that a new round of UN inspectors would be sent into Iraq. But, she was snookered.

As she put it in the debate the other night, "What I did not count on....is that he (Bush) had no intention to allow the inspectors to finish the job."

Now, as Gerth and Van Natta point out, the war resolution contained no directive for further UN inspections in Iraq. It left it to the president's discretion to determine if this approach was working, to assess Saddam Hussein's compliance, and to resort to invasion as an alternative.

Senator Carl Levin offered an amendment that would have required additional UN action and required the president, if the UN diplomacy failed, to return to congress for authorization for a unilateral war initiative.

But Clinton, who now claims that more diplomacy was key, voted against this. And, as the reporters go on, "Clinton has never publicly explained her vote against the Levin amendment or said why she stayed on the sidelines as 11 other senators debated it for 95 minutes that day."

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/StarParker/2007/06/11/war,_lies_and_hillary_clinton

"Which matters most to you when it comes the war in Iraq? The 2002 vote on the use of force resolution (past), the fight over how Congress can limit the scope of the war (present) or what is to come in 2008 and beyond (future)?"

What matters most in terms of the Fix's audience is that Iraq is a millstone around the GOP's neck. An entire column that attempts to reframe it as the D's problem seems wildly dishonest. Sitting around trying to decide which D is damaged more by the war than another D is kooky when the R's have been driving the boat to begin with. And the current crop of serious R candidates shows no signs of keeping us from continuing our headlong rush over a cliff.

In the interests of appearing to be "fair and balanced," CC should ask the more relevant question: which R is the least damaged by their current positions on the war? Given the recent polling data on the pronounced shift in the attitudes of rural voters, the answer to this would likely be the same as "Which GOP candidate has a ghost of a chance of winning the general election?"

chi town hustler: Gen. Powell is trying to regain some of the trust most folks had in him. I doubt this can or will happen when the infamous tape is played over and over again. This loyalty thing GW has going for him is something I could never understand. When I think of the many good folk that have been hurt by helping spread the out and out lies, knowingly or not, of this Administrations, it boggles the mind.

Well, chi-town, neither party would nominate Powell, perhaps one of the few persons of whom it could be said both parties ought to consider.

CC's positioning of the three D frontrunners is, at best, a journalistic convenience. None of them speak to Iraq and the Middle East with the pragmatism of Biden and all of them are in danger of toying with serious issues. It will be interesting to see if the Ds will now oppose Baker-Hamilton when the Rs begin to support it.

While nothing has been more destructive in the short run to an orderly legislative process than an Administration that operates from the theory of the "unitary executive", that will pass. In the long run, a 2 year presidential campaign, repeated every cycle, will cripple us with the narcissism of small differences that only this circus can inflict, and which would cause any objective visitor to America to wonder what in hell CC is talking about.

In case you were wondering - I am the biggest loser. I am all hopped up this morning. See how busy, busy, busy I am.

Posted by: | June 11, 2007 08:48 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 08:50 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 08:59 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 09:07 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 09:26 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 09:42 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 09:45 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 09:47 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 09:50 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 09:56 AM
Posted by: typical | June 11, 2007 10:06 AM
Posted by: no accountability | June 11, 2007 10:14 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 10:18 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 10:20 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 10:28 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 10:32 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 10:36 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 10:48 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 10:56 AM
Posted by: republican privatizion | June 11, 2007 11:09 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 11:15 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 11:17 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 11:22 AM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 11:24 AM
Posted by: incompetence | June 11, 2007 12:09 PM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 12:29 PM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 12:34 PM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 12:38 PM
Posted by: | June 11, 2007 12:42 PM

Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

Posted by: | June 11, 2007 12:38 PM

Anonymous poster, you are once again posting bogus garbage, and Al Gore should be duly embarrassed for having used this quote in his recent book!!!

"Origins: The above quote, attributed to President Abraham Lincoln, has been periodically dusted off and presented to the public as a prophetic warning about the destruction of America through the usurpation of power and concentration of wealth by capitalist tyrants for over a century now, undergoing a renewed burst of popularity whenever wartime exigencies stir public debate over governmental policies.

These words did not originate with Abraham Lincoln, however -- they appear in none of his collected writings or speeches, and they did not surface until more than twenty years after his death (and were immediately denounced as a "bold, unflushing forgery" by John Nicolay, Lincoln's private secretary). This spurious Lincoln warning gained currency during the 1896 presidential election season (when economic policy, particularly the USA's adherence to the gold standard, was the major campaign issue), and ever since then it has been cited and quoted by innumerable journalists, clergymen, congressmen, and compilers of encyclopedias.

Pedigree for this quote is often asserted by pointing to the 1950 Lincoln Encyclopedia, compiled by Archer H. Shaw, which "authenticates" the quote by citing a purported 1864 letter from Lincoln to one Col. William F. Elkins found in Emanuel Hertz's 1931 book, Abraham Lincoln: A New Portrait. However, this source is fraudulent: Hertz was taken in by a forgery, and Shaw, a sloppy compiler, added the bogus letter to his encyclopedia (along with several other pieces of Lincoln apocrypha) without verifying its authenticity. As historian Merrill Peterson noted in Lincoln in American Memory: "

Posted by: | June 11, 2007 12:41 PM - resident idiot. If you say something about feminist nutjobs that blindly support a power grubbing chameleon like Hillary Clinton, you are not saying something about all women, only about "womyn" who are dumb enough to support such a nightmare to run this country. I would further note that there is no difference between the intellectual bankruptcy and techniques of those "womyn" and a brain dead Fox news watcher or Bush supporter. No difference watsoever.

chi town hustler writes
"[Powell] would certainly blow away the nine dwarves the Republicans are wringing hands over. And he would woo alot of the democrats in the middle."

He'd win in a landslide. Its a pity he won't run.

"he will veto them, like he already did."

So what? Make him veto them again and again. Make the Repubs in Congress vote against accountability again and again.

More to the point, when Sen Clinton says "If the war is still going in 2009, I will stop it," she isn't telling us a damn thing. What the Senator needs to do is tell us what she'd do now, not play some kind of guessing game over what Iraq will look like in 2 years. Thus far, she has failed to deliver. Is it due to a lack of conviction? I lack of ideas? Lack of commitment? Inability to make a decision? She wants to campaign on the failures of the Bush admin, rather than on her own leadership. Not very Presidential, if you ask me.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is now viewed favorably by 19% of American voters and unfavorably by 45%. Just 3% have a Very Favorable opinion while 22% hold a Very Unfavorable views.

Dennis, when you're right....

meant 'closed' not 'losed'

I have seen the question here several times asking whether the next president is even amongst the current declared and suspected candidates.

Interesting interview this weekend. Colin Powell. He would have losed Guantamo, "not tomorrow, but this afternoon".

He would certainly blow away the nine dwarves the Republicans are wringing hands over. And he would woo alot of the democrats in the middle.

Was he trying to be America's consience, or a sign of things to come?

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/06/10/video-dennis-miller-goes-nuclear-on-harry-reid/

Do not expect Hillary to repudiate the basic tenets of neoconism. Hillary's neocon-lite allies which she absolutely requires for financial and media support demanded the Iraqi war including perpetual occupation of Iraq. Further, Hillary's neocon-lite supporters have also demanded that she remains silent and abdicate American interests in the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy to the Israeli jidahists!

Lastly, it is a disgrace that Mr. Cillizza did not even mention the Israeli/Palestinian question in today's article given its signifcance for real and total peace in the Middle East!

'What I want from them are new bills directing the President to change course'

umm, he will veto them, like he already did.

If you say something hateful and insulting about all women, and then someone calls you on it -- you say that 'proves your point'. It only proves that you offend women purposefully.

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
(letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)

What matters most on the war in Iraq is the Future and the Present. In other words, what to do & how to get there. However, the opening article mischaracterizes Sen Clinton as a candidate that offers such solutions. She has demonstrated zero leadership on the subject. Her promise to end the war, if W hasn't by 2009 amounts to little more than campaign rhetoric. She and Obama are extremely disappointing for their lack of leadership on this subject. With their existing jobs, they have some influence over what happens in Iraq now; it is the actions they take now (or don't) that should be used to judge them as potential Presidents. In my book, voting 'no' isn't exactly leading from the front. What I want from them are new bills directing the President to change course. Thus far, both have failed to deliver.

Posted by: | June 11, 2007 12:29 PM
(anon) - Thank you for making my point.

As part of their much-touted efforts to help Africa with debt relief, the Bush administration "suddenly" announced that they were going to work through the IMF to get debt relief for countries in dire need of funds to provide AIDS drugs. Sounds good...

But evidently, the announcement was not as "sudden" as it seemed. In at least two African countries, Bush cronies had already purchased the bonds in question at deep discount prices, so that when the U.S. redeemed them, they'd make obscene profits.

Well meaning Americans empathize with the suffering of starving third world citizen, being attacked by a changing climate, overpopulation, civil war and strife, and aids. President Bush magnanimously offers up a program to offer Debt Relief to the third world country, and the US Congress responds by approving funds, which are then held in a US account.

Simultaneously, Vulture funds such as Paul Singer's, knowing that the target country finances are about to be re-capitalized by the US Taxpayers, go out and buy up the debt which was supposed to be forgiven. Here's a recent example:

"...By extraordinary coincidence, the amount claimed is almost exactly the sum which Zambia is due to receive this year as a result of the Gleneagles debt deal..."

Here's one report on the results from OXFAM:

Zambia stung by debt relief fraud

One of the poorest countries in Africa is about to undergo a process of debt reduction with a difference. It will be paying more in debt servicing after creditors provide debt relief than it is at present, with devastating consequences for poverty.

Greg Palast has a series of reports on the ongoing scandal on his website, and discussed it on Air America Sunday. "...a vulture fund can extract more than $40m from Zambia for a debt which it bought for less than $4m.

The same is true in the Congo. The "vulture" is Billionaire Paul Singer (of SwiftBoat fame).

MikeB: Who is calling who names?? Try reading your own comments. Come to think about it, you are to smart to read what you write.

What lylepink really means to say is that Hillary is a "womyn" or whatever feminists call themselves and each other these days, and they can do just about anything, no matter how nutty or underhanded or juts plain stupid, and you are not allowed to point out that little fact without being attacked, called names. etc.''

wow. you sure do hate women, guy. you got a problem.

The New York Times has a feature story about the reactions of Mormons in Utah as well as across the country to Mitt Romney's candidacy. "We struggle with those outsiders who see us as weird -- the magic underwear stuff," said 30-year old University of Utah student John Hatch. On the other hand, talk-radio host Tom Grover said some of his callers were actually uncomfortable with Romney's repudiation of the church's polygamist history, during his appearance on 60 Minutes.

"That's a tough thing for people to hear when their ancestors sacrificed a lot to live that life," Grover said. "They honor the place of it in church history."

PoliticalRealityOnline, your hyperbole about surrender is an oxymoron. To what government could the US possibly surrender? For that matter, over whom would the US ever be able to declare victory?

Face it, the domino theory never matierialized after Vietnam, and likewise it's not possible to kill every Islamic radical.

Radical Islam is no different than radical Christianity or any other violent ideology. It's an ideology that knows no borders, and people are more susceptible to it where ever they feel hopeless and oppressed. There are people born all over the world who identify with radical Islam, radical Chrisianity, and even support Nazi ideology, including America. War and death seem to have a way of recruiting violent radicals, who don't mind dying and killing.

Lt.Pronin - What lylepink really means to say is that Hillary is a "womyn" or whatever feminists call themselves and each other these days, and they can do just about anything, no matter how nutty or underhanded or juts plain stupid, and you are not allowed to point out that little fact without being attacked, called names. etc. Hillary's supporters are the "Karl Rove minions of the left", fundimentalist whack jobs that infiltrated form the Naderites, the morally and intellectual berefit and adrift. Hillary Clinton is a hipocrit, a corporate pawn, and a hungry empty suit. She is no diffferent than Bush...and her supporters are no different than the swine we read periodically here who support Bush.Ignore them, logiv simply has no effect.

Lt.Pronin: There you go again trying to distort what I say. Others have tried and failed, just as you will fail. Hillary has explained that vote for anyone who will listen. When the opponents of Hillary have nothing better than "one vote" among hundreds, perhaps thousands, that is not much to base opposition to her on, when you cannot even get what "The Vote" was accurate.

The Bush administration increasingly emphasized partisan political ties over expertise in recent years in selecting the judges who decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, despite laws that preclude such considerations, according to an analysis by The Washington Post.

At least one-third of the immigration judges appointed by the Justice Department since 2004 have had Republican connections or have been administration insiders, and half lacked experience in immigration law, Justice Department, immigration court and other records show.

I believe the American public wants to hear solutions to the Iraqi mess, and not "history," whether it's Obama's nor Edwards's.

Of course, now it's a little early to predict very well what options will be available in early 2009. Still, "What I would do then" is more important than "what I did" years ago. Sure, Congress members do have records and they are indicators of beliefs and policies.

If what candidates did and said in the past was critical, Mitt Romney would be a stand-up comic, not a candidate with a huge war chest.

'political reality' is another dangerous lunatic and quivering bedwetter. The 'forces of radical Islam' are in the government we put in place in Iraq, you moron. The Sunni insurgents we are arming in iraq are joining al queda in droves -- our presence there is creating more jihadists then we can kill, as our generals admit.

There is something pathetic and disturbing about the way all the lunatic candidates on the right pander to their slathering and drooling base, who are so fearful of their own shadows they will believe anything and plunge America into the enormous economic catastrophe we are already experiencing.

Missing from all three democrat candidates is any detailed description of a credible national security policy on Iraq that includes their advocacy of a complete geo-strategic, political, moral, military and economic capitulation to the forces of radical Islam in Iraq. The reason is that such a policy is an oxymoron by definition. There is something pathetic and disturbing about watching the top three democrat candidates pander to the nuts at MoveOn.Org by recklessly arguing about their level of commitment to a surrender policy that would expose America to a huge economic catastrophe for no reason other than their personal political ambitions.

Visit the link below for the truth about retreat from Iraq.

http://www.politicalrealityonline.com/The_Bottom_Line.html

Lt. Pronin, Just give up on Lylepink and Hillary. He thinks women who don't support her are "jealous" of her. There is no reasoning with that kind of idol worship.

I'm not in Congress, but I could see the build-up for Iraq months and months before the invasion. I could hear the Powell lies before the U.N. I knew the resolution was but a formality to give cover before unleashing the dogs of war.

Any Senator who didn't know that was either in a coma or was making a calculated political decision.

Haven't we had enough dynasties leading us around by the nose. No Clinton. No Bushies like McCain. We can do better.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Kerry's military experience helped him. What hurt him was that he could so easily be stereotyped as a Massachussets liberal.

As I've said before, the only two Democrats elected in the past 40 years were southern governors.
The electoral map is brutal to senators and northern Democrats--throw female or black on top of those fundamental electoral weaknesses, and you get my point...

I have problems with Hillary, but still beleive she would be far superior to the dangerous lunatics seeking the gop nomination.

Lylepink: No matter how many times you and others try to position Hillary falsely, it will not work. I am aware that there are no "Do-Overs", but I think she still needs to admit "I Was Wrong," or else how can we ever "Trust Her On Anything"?

You say "I Do Not Think Hillary Voted To Go To War," but "You Are Wrong, Sir!" If she was really unable to see the Machiavellian maneuverings going on behind the scenes, "I'm Sorry, But That Makes Her Too Gullible To Be An Effective President." I mean, come on... others in the Congress had questions and concerns, and it was not a unanimous vote. "She Didn't Have To Vote To Let Bush Go To War".

You assure me smugly, "You are in no way getting anywhere with those of us that support Hillary" and that appears to be the main problem, because like other "True Believers," you think that because you have made up your own mind, no outside questions concerns / evidence should ever be allowed to disrupt the calm, unruffled serenity of your certitude. Uh... life doesn't work that way.

And since you ask, I have no "Fear" of Hillary, but am scared of those of you on cruise control who do not feel that "Your Candidate" should ever be asked to explain a decision she made in the past which is directly relevant to the job she seeks now.

"So, I Suppose You Have An Indignant Answer For That, In Which You Will Capitalize Your Outrage Within Quotation Marks, Yet Say Nothing Substantive About Hillary's Vote...?"

The GOP has no respect for war heroes. They make chickenhawks look bad. No, they'll go for rudy -- he's the only one sleazy enough for them.

Dog Wama J, Very well said. And, while the war in Iraq is top-of-mind, immigration may be a decider, especially when Bush makes a show of pulling our troops back before the next election.

The Dems Big 3 fall short.... past, present, and with past as prologue, future.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

'The leading candidates on the GOP side are a genuine war hero (former Vietnam POW) and someone widely percieved as a 9/11 hero.'

John McCain, sadly, has become a pandering old man, and Rudy is the biggest phony in the Western hemisphere... a war profiteer and a blatantly dishonest thug. What he did on 9/11 cost lives rather than saved them, and if the press wasn't so dishonest and lazy itself, you would know that.

Also, remember, Kerry HAD military experience and Bush did not.

Alan, does the phrase "war hero" not have the same ring for you that it once did? It sure doesn't for me.

http://www.deadoraliveinfo.com/dead.nsf/cnames-nf/Captain+Beefheart

Democrats are in a prime position.... to BLOW IT again. I think Democrats had better think past the primaries and ask themselves: who can pick up a state that Gore or Kerry didn't get? None of the three leading candidates have any military experience at all. All three are/were lawyers & senators: the only African-American in the Senate, the wife of a president who survived impeachment (however silly the reason), and a guy who served one term in the Senate 4 years ago.

The leading candidates on the GOP side are a genuine war hero (former Vietnam POW) and someone widely percieved as a 9/11 hero.

I don't want the Democrats to lose. I'm just sayin'.

'WASHINGTON (AP) -- Rampant abuses by lenders have followed a boom in higher-priced college loans not guaranteed by the government, and lax federal oversight has made the situation worse, New York's attorney general said Wednesday.'

--privatization and deregulation are designed specifically to enable criminal and abusive behavior

Captain Beefheart is dead.

Lt.Pronin: No matter how many times you and others try to position Hillary falsely, it will not work. Each vote is cast "At that time" and there are no "Do-Overs", I do not think Hillary voted to go to war, and it has been pointed out every which way from Sunday, that in "Fact" she did not. A vote is part of "The Record", and it is common practice for opponents to try and distort "The Record". You are in no way getting anywhere with those of us that support Hillary and that appears to be your main focus, and since you "Fear" her the most, it is expected.

Tropical Hot Dog Night
Like two flamingoes in a fruit fight
Ev'ry colour of day
Whirlin' around at night
I'm playin' this music
So the young girls will come out
To meet the monster tonight
Tropical Hot Dog Night

Like two flamingoes in a fruit fight
I don't wanna know 'bout wrong or right
I don't want to know
- I'm anywhere tonight

Tropical Hot Dog Night
Like two flamingoes in a fruit fight
Like steppin' out of a triangle
Into striped light
Striped light, striped light
Tropical Hot Dog Night
- Everything's wrong, at the same time it's right

The truth has no patterns for me tonight
I'm playing this music so the young girls will come out
To meet the monster tonight
Meet the monster tonight

What do all you women do
When the men get Tropical Hot Dog payday?
What do you do on Tropical Hot Dog day day?
Yay; Yay

Step out of a triangle into striped light
Turn around and step back into striped light
Tropical Hot Dog Night

I'm playin' this song
For all the young girls to come out to meet the monster tonight
Meet the monster tonight
How would you like to be the lucky girl,
The lucky one?
- To be the monster tonight
Ow, to be the monster tonight
Oh, everything's wrong, at the same time it's white!

You get to be - you get to be - with me
And also to be the monster tonight

The New York Times is reporting that our military has been arming Sunni death squads. And in return, the death squads have apparently "promised" not to attack American troops and start fighting "al-Qaeda".

The insurgents in Iraq must be laughing out loud at the utter stupidity of the US government. Just 'promise' them anything and they will give you weapons you can use against them. Why not just tell our troops to commit suicide and get it over with?

Chris, when are you going to endorse Hillary? Just make it official man!

Since 9/11, various incidents (Ann Coulter's demand to convert Muslim countries to Christianity, Gen. Boykin's casting of the War on Terror in terms of a religious war, Franklin Graham's administration-supported conversion efforts, the controversy sparked by Pope Benedict's anti-Muslim commentary, even the President's view of his policies as a "crusade") have left no doubt that, in key isolated Bush-supporting circles, the "War on Terror" - and specifically more wars on more Islamic states such as Iran - is supported because such wars are seen as religious wars to be waged in defense of Christianity. Some of the most aggressive advocates of war against not only Iraq but also Iran prominently include leading Christian evangelicals, who have stressed the centrality of these hawkish foreign policy views to their moral and religious agenda.

Giuliani's talent for expressing prosecutor-like righteous anger towards "bad people" -- as well as his well-honed ability to communicate base-pleasing rhetoric towards Islamic extremists -- are underappreciated. I don't think any candidate will be able to compete with his ability to convey a genuine hard-line against Middle Eastern Muslims (see here for one representative maneuver), and that is the issue that -- admittedly with some exceptions -- dominates the Christian conservative agenda more than gay marriage and abortion (concerns which he can and will minimize by promising to appoint more Antonin Scalias and Sam Alitos to the Supreme Court, something he emphasized last night in a highly amicable interview with Sean Hannity).

The second issue typically used to argue that Giuliani cannot attract the necessary support from the party's Christian conservative faction is the wreck of a personal life he has suffered -- the two broken marriages, the publicly documented adultery, his cohabitation with a gay couple, etc. But there are few things that are clearer than the fact that Christian conservatives care far less about a person's actual conduct and behavior (and specifically whether it comports to claimed Christian morality standards) than they do about the person's moral and political rhetoric, and even more so, a person's ability to secure political power.

Two of the most admired political figures among Christian conservatives -- Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich -- have the most shameful, tawdry, and degenerate personal lives (using the claimed standards of that political faction). Yet the gross disparity between their personal conduct and the religious and moral values they espouse has not injured their standing in the slightest among the "values voters."

iraq is the main issue on americans minds.

obama is too inexperienced and manipulates the facts. he could not have voted for or against the iraq situation. hindsight is always 20/20. wants to be the first black president. eventually he will make it if he keeps working toward that goal.

edwards has been honest with his responses. so honest that he admitted he didn't read the nie briefing before voting to authorize the iraq situation. he also admitted he was wrong to vote for the "invasion" of iraq and has apologized to america. doesn't need the job but would be the most qualified so far.

clinton wants to be the first female president. she may be competent but i think she has a lot of baggage to overcome and thats a tough row to hoe. if elected bill clinton will be an asset.

as far as the gop is concerned? its not going to matter who is nominated. the gop will be on an extended vacation.

The principal force driving American actions over the last six years is the willingness of this political faction to exploit the 9/11 attacks to any extent necessary, and to find any pretext necessary, in order to bring about their policies of Middle East militarism. They are nowhere near the end of that course, and a war with Iran has long been the centerpiece. They may be discredited and weakened, but they are still the most powerful political faction in our country, the one most respected by the press, and the one in full control of the White House.

UPDATE: What the real reason is for the unexpected dismissal of Pete Pace as Joint Chiefs Chairman. As with all of these sorts of personnel changes, there are likely multiple causes, and all one can really do is speculate, but it is worth noting that General Pace recently created controversy when he "undercut the argument advanced by the White House and many GOP lawmakers that a congressional debate challenging the Bush plan would hurt troop morale" and, perhaps more importantly, when he contradicted the official Bush administration line by stating that "there was no evidence the Iranian government was supplying Iraqi insurgents with highly lethal roadside bombs."

As documented at the time, Pace appeared quite deliberately to be undermining the administration's most provocative war-fueling claims against Iran. There would certainly be substantial military resistance to an entirely new neoconservative project which will further stretch, exploit and dishonor the armed forces for such plainly illegitimate goals, though the extent of that resistance remains to be seen.

I would dispute your characterization. I believe Edwards to be living in "The Past," specifically 2004. He has been running for president for almost 7 years now.
I believe Hillary to be "The Present," as in Right Here, Right Now, Me Me Me. She could care less about what has happened or will happen... she only wants to ensure that she is the center of attention at present.
And I don't know whether or not Obama is "The Future" - jury's still out. I would like to think that his habit of answering in depth rather than in sound bites is one that others will adopt. I would like to think that as a country we would now be willing to vote for an intelligent person BECAUSE he/she is intelligent, after the unfortunate example of the last seven years.

In the American political framework, one can never lose credibility by urging on new wars. That is an inherently respectable position. Only opposing new wars, or the continuation of old ones, can result in a loss of credibility. Yet both the views and the underlying motives of warmongers like Lieberman are as radical -- and as deceitful and corrupt -- as can be.

In urging on Glorious War with Iran, Lieberman repeatedly mentioned Israel, including the fact that he had just returned from his latest visit there. In parading around all the various possible pretexts for this new war, Lieberman repeatedly highlighted all the threats which Iran poses to that country, which is a different nation than the U.S. That Israel is at the center of the growing calls for a new war with Iran can hardly be reasonably doubted.

In early 2007, Benjamin Netanyahu, likely the next Israeli Prime Minister, said:Israel "must immediately launch an intense, international, public relations front first and foremost on the U.S. The goal being to encourage President Bush to live up to specific pledges about Iran, We must make clear to the government, the Congress and the American public that Iran is a threat to the U.S. and the entire world, not only Israel."

So why does Lieberman urge an attack on Iran, which would result in retaliation on US citizens, to protect Israel? Where is he a citizen? Which country does he represent? It's about time our government made decisions in its own self-interest. It's about time we stopped letting religious leaders and demogogues dictate everything we do. Otherwise we will continue fighting unwinnable, 5,000 year-old battles.

All three tenses--past, present and future--are appropriate to the debate. Any candidate aspiring to the office is going to have to lay out his view concerning all three tenses. It is important that we talk about the past because we learn from our mistakes. And this was a whopper! We cannot escape the present because what we do now will determine that future we all want--a peaceful, stable Iraq that does not support the aims of Al Quaeda or other terrorist groups or nations who want to do us harm. So the question becomes one of having a strategy that at least gets us close to what we want. And that strategy should be heavy on diplomacy, cooperation and presenting a face of America far different from the one we have shown over the past six and one half years.

Lylepink, you say "I think we should be looking for a lot more protests in the very near future and repubs will be changing their support for this tragic failure."

How about Hillary? When will she admit that her vote - cast without reading the NIE, AND with a completely unwarranted belief that Bush would only invade as a last resort - was a mistake? When will Hillary change her support for this tragic failure?

'One official estimated that with only one major route from the country -- through southern Iraq to Kuwait -- it would take at least 3,000 large convoys some 10 months to remove U.S. military gear and personnel alone, not including the several thousand combat vehicles that would be needed to protect such an operation.'

Got that? The Bush/Cheney regime and their neocon war planning geniuses put 150,000 US troops and billions worth of highly sophisticated weapons into an unwinnable occupation in a hostile country undergoing multiple civil and sectarian wars with no near term prospects of political reconciliation -- and there's only one very exposed road out. The only thing more reckless would be a plan to arm both sides so that when the Iraqis tire of killing each other, they can point their US taxpayer funded weapons at US troops. Oh, wait. . . .

Tony Story, Edwards was on the field as a second-stringer, and when he finally got the ball, he fumbled it.

'The explosion in government secrecy since 9/11 has been breathtaking. In 1995, according to the Information Security Oversight Office, the stamp of classification -- "confidential," "secret," "top secret," etc. -- was wielded about 3.6 million times, mostly to veil existing secrets in new documents. Ten years later, it was used a staggering 14.2 million times. That works out to 1,600 classification decisions every hour, night and day, all year long.

Managing this behemoth has required a vast expansion in the ranks of those cleared to deal in secrets. By 2004, the line of 340,000 people waiting to receive a security clearance would have stretched 100 miles -- from Washington to Richmond. Many must still wait a year or more. And the cost of securing those secrets -- as much as $7.7 billion in safes, background checks, training and information security -- is equal to the entire budget for the Environmental Protection Agency.

But the notion that information is more credible because it's secret is increasingly unfounded. In fact, secret information is often more suspect because it hasn't been subjected to open debate. Those with their own agendas can game the system, over-classifying or stove-piping self-serving intelligence to shield it from scrutiny. Those who cherry-picked intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war could ignore anything that contradicted it. Even now, some members of Congress say that they avoid reading classified reports for fear that if they do, the edicts of secrecy will bar them from discussing vital public issues.'

LAT: "Sudan has secretly worked with the CIA to spy on the insurgency in Iraq, an example of how the U.S. has continued to cooperate with the Sudanese regime even while condemning its role in the killing of tens of thousands of civilians in Darfur."

A lot will depend on Iraq come next February, and voters have short memories and usually don't get involved until a couple weeks before the election. This time will be different, in that folks have been against our involvement there for such a long time and the Viet Nam expierence is beginning to be compared in many ways. I think we should be looking for a lot more protests in the very near future and repubs will be changing their support for this tragic failure.

WP: Privatization roll-back at the CIA: " ... Acting under pressure from Congress, the CIA has decided to trim its contractor staffing by 10 percent. It is the agency's first effort since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to curb what critics have decried as the growing privatization of U.S. intelligence work, a circumstance that has sharply boosted personnel costs. Contractors currently make up about one-third of the CIA workforce, but CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has said that their work has not been efficiently managed.'

No kidding. The bush admin had one major objective besides 'remaking' the ME and securing the oil for their buddies in the business. And that was privatization of every government function, with the big no-bid contracts nad goodies also going to their pals and supporters. And of course they sold the taxpayers and the entire country in the process, but then they don't believe in governing -- they despise government.

They've never really pretended anything else. So why would we expect them to govern? Why would you expect anything other than anarchy? Anarchy allows you to steal without accountability, without getting caught. And that's why the Treasury is empty, that's why we're in a deep hole of debt. That was always the plan.

For Tony Story - if Edwards had thrown that retort back at Obama, he could have said "Well, John, you only served one term and left. That job was your only elected office, I served for 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and before that worked as a community organizer helping poor people in Chicago better their lives. I was in public life when the Iraq war started and I opposed it publicly."

No one ever says, when talking about the NIE -- exactly how long did the senators have to read it? A day? A week? It was what, 400 pages long?

It was odd enough when Mark McKinnon, a senior media adviser to John McCain who also led George W. Bush's ad efforts in 2000 and 2004, said he'd back Barack Obama if he got the Democratic nomination. It's even odder that Bush's Secretary of State has advised Obama on foreign policy and is open to voting Democratic in 2008.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has sought out former Secretary of State Colin Powell for advice on foreign policy matters. [...]

Powell said he has met twice with Obama, the Illinois senator.

Asked about how he plans to vote in 2008, the lifelong Republican would not commit to supporting the GOP nominee. "I'm going to support the best person that I can find who will lead this country for the eight years beginning in January of 2009," Powell said.

It's not exactly a vote of confidence in the Republican field, now is it?

Said Ron Paul of his rivals, "They're worried about the immediate next election, which is the Republican primary, and anything they can do to pander, they'll do it, and they'll forget about what they believe in, they'll forget about the Constitution, they'll forget about building coalitions."

indeed.

Obama is the only person that has a credible position on Iraq.

Clinton, as a woman wanting to be CiC, didn't have the "luxury" of opposing the war b/c politically she couldn't do so and still be viable nationally. (Hindsight: Or could she? -- I still say no)

Edwards didn't necessarily have to go along, by virtue (literally) of having testicles, but was apparently convinced by a charlatan named Bob Shrum to do the wrong thing (both morally and politically -- the 'moral' component being the sanctioning of a war that he, by his own admission, believed to be wrong).

I don't love Dean, but the "brilliance" of his campaign was that proved the "good policy is good politics" ideal better than I've seen in some time.

And yet, Obama had the same access to intel Clinton and Edwards did vis-a-vis the NIE. We just learned that neither read the damn thing. Obama knew as much as they did.

But they did it. They went along. Ambition over principle. (I can't believe I'm typing this, given that Barack Obama is the biggest egomaniac ever.)

"Good policy is good politics" wins again.

(Obviously not about being contrarian though -- ie. Don't mortgage the house on McCain.)

As Kevin Drum noted, Colin Powell's description of what should be the U.S. policy towards Guantanamo Bay was clear, concise, and right.

"If it was up to me, I would close Guantanamo. Not tomorrow, but this afternoon. I'd close it," he said.

"And I would not let any of those people go," he said. "I would simply move them to the United States and put them into our federal legal system. The concern was, well then they'll have access to lawyers, then they'll have access to writs of habeas corpus. So what? Let them. Isn't that what our system is all about?"

He added, "[E]very morning I pick up a paper and some foreign authoritarian figure, some person somewhere, is using Guantanamo to hide their own misdeeds," Powell said. "[W]e have shaken the belief that the world had in America's justice system by keeping a place like Guantanamo open... We don't need it, and it's causing us far more damage than any good we get for it."

Now, was that so hard?

'Clinton offered a stunning lapse of forethought when she voted for this war'

You mean, 'ability to predict the future'? I don't think anyone could have imagined quite how recklessly and incompetently Bush/cheney would conduct their little adventure. I don't love Hillary but blaming her for the massive failures of bush/cheney is silly. How could senators not have given bush whatever tools he needed to do what he said he was going to do [negogiate from a position of strength]? That would have been disloyal to the potus -- that would have been acting like a republican. At least she didn't stoop to the tactics of the Republican congress during the Clinton years -- trying to undermine the presidents and topple him, no matter the cost to the nation.

The past for Edwards is the fact that he was on the Intelligence Committee, didn't read the NIE briefing, voted for the war! Period. Now it comes to light that Bob Graham and a very few others that read the NIE briefing voted against the war because of what it contained. Edwards shift form the past, yes his record, is shameful political pandering of the worst kind. And his past, or record, is about a half a term in the senate, (he was running for prez the second half while missing many votes) far less public experience than Obama and Clinton.

The past for Edwards is the fact that he was on the Intelligence Committee, didn't read the NIE briefing, voted for the war! Period. Now it comes to light that Bob Graham and a very few others that read the NIE briefing voted against the war because of what it contained. Edwards shift form the past, yes his record, is shameful political pandering of the worst kind. And his past, or record, is about a half a term in the senate, (he was running for prez the second half while missing many votes) far less public experience than Obama and Clinton.

'Condoleezza Rice said she plans to return to Stanford University when her role as secretary of state ends in 2009 -- dampening the hopes of some who would like to see her run for president.'

'LONDON, England (CNN) -- Entertainment giant Sony has been branded irresponsible for using a cathedral from a city plagued by gun crime in a violent video game.

The Church of England says the company did not seek permission to use the Manchester Cathedral in the game, and is demanding an apology and a large donation to be used in its work with young people.

Church leaders have accused Sony of the "desecration" of the cathed