<p>Difference is that Hillary recognizes a mess and is trying to figure the most responsible way out. The Busheviks made the mess, deny they made a mess, and keep spinning to justify their ability to keep on making the mess.</p>
<p>No, the only thing Hillary recognizes is that unless she toes the line with the Kos kids and the Move-on classless piece of *****s, she could lose her top prize. She has very selective hearing. If the message is that there are signs of improvement (from multiple sources) or that the strategic impact of a loss there would be devastating (again from multiple sources), she doesn’t hear it. Her only objective is to get elected, principles be damned.</p>
<p>
Because the Republican Party is such a shining example of class, yes, fundingf?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/[/url]”>http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/24/cheney.leahy/</a></p>
<p>It’s enough to make the heart soar at the exemplary role models populating the GOP. Look no further than page 1 of this thread.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Huh? The KOS kids, as you put it, and other lefty blogs can’t stand Hillary Clinton. They view both Hillary and Bill Clinton as Republicans. Or, even worse, DLCer centrists. They rail against free trade policies. They rail against Clinton’s moderately hawkish national security philosophy. They rail against Clinton’s refusal to support single-payer government run health care. They rail against her endorsement from Wall Street CEOs and fundraisers from Rupert Murdoch. And, so on and so forth. On the KOS strawpolls, Clinton usually finishes a distant fifth with single-digit support compared to the KOSsack golden boy, John Edwards.</p>
<p>You are dead wrong if you think Clinton has the support of the Starbucks lefties and Naderites in the blogosphere.</p>
<p>I agree with FundingFather. Hillary is too busy trying to distance herself from her latest “dirty money” scandal with Norman Hsu and the Woodstock guys to be all that concerned what happens in Iraq. She will say whatever she has to say in order to get elected. On the other hand, the military pays very little attention to her opinion. The top brass know that Hillary would make a terrible commander in chief, as no one in the military has the slightest amount of respect for her. But, if she thinks that grandstanding and impeaching General Petraeus’ credibilty and honor will garner votes, she’ll do it anyway.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, that is not true. Clinton has used her five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee to build relationships among the top generals in the Pentagon. One of the reasons she pushed for military planning of redeployment from Iraq is that Generals were pulling her aside during her Pentagon briefings and telling her to push because the White House was preventing them from doing the necessary planning. From her work on veterans affairs and defense procurement, Clinton has earned the respect of many in the military.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0518,lombardi,63597,5.html[/url]”>http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0518,lombardi,63597,5.html</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
Clinton’s advisers take issue with the idea that the senator got on Armed Services simply to boost her r</p>
<p>“You are dead wrong if you think Clinton has the support of the Starbucks lefties and Naderites in the blogosphere.”</p>
<p>I never said that she was successful in winning their favor - but she certainly takes every opportunity to ingratiate herself with them - even if she has to resort to calling General Petraeus a liar from the Senate floor.</p>
<p>Annudahmom, if you have to go back to 2004 to find a retort, that says a lot. Then, to compare someone using profanity in a one-on-one conversation with taking a full page ad out in the NY Times accusing a person who has devoted his life to his country of betraying it because they disagreed with his report is beyond ridiculous. Benedict Arnold betrayed his country. Move-on should be ashamed of comparing Petraeus to him.</p>
<p>ff:</p>
<p>I can tell you don’t follow the Democratic campaigns very closely. Clinton (and Obama, for that matter) have gone out of their way to not pander to the Starbucks lefties in the blogosphere, on the whole range of issues. Kucinich is the darling of the blogosphere, along with recent convert John Edwards.</p>
<p>Clinton’s campaign strategy was no not cater to the lefty-lefts, but to do just enough outreach to keep the blogosphere from bolting to Nader again. The outreach has been more procedural than issue oriented – sending Wolfson on Bill O’Reilly to defend the KOS convention, etc.</p>
<p>BTW, for voters who prefer to go right to the source rather than accept characterizations such as yours, here is a link to the transcript and video of Senator Clinton questioning Petraeus and Cocker last evening:</p>
<p><a href=“http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=282410&&[/url]”>http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=282410&&</a></p>
<p>Poor Hillary, whenever you see a picture of her with “the troops” you’ll notice that most, particularly the enlisted ones, have their third finger crossed over their index finger–the international POW signal for “I’m smiling under duress”!</p>
<p>“Most” or “one”?</p>
<p>Fwiw, the polling on views of Iraqi policy is remarkably similar between military and non-military families. Members of families with someone serving active duty in Iraq are only a little more likely than the general population to support Bush.
The rah-rah has deserted many of the junior officers and a lot of the enlisted just want to get home again in one piece.</p>
<p>The Dad:</p>
<p>It’s become like the movie “Ground Hog Day”. Every six months, like clockwork, we wake up and find a new sales job to kick the can down the road for another six month Friedman Unit “just to give it time” to see if progress is being made. Each orchestrated sales job conveniently ignores the rationale and benchmarks promised the previous time.</p>
<p>Establishing security didn’t work, so proclaim a new strategy of training Iraqis and plead for six more months. Training Iraqis doesn’t work so proclaim a surge to establish security and buy time for political reconciliation. Six months later, those benchmarks are discarded, so time to proclaim a strategy of bottom-up political progress, just give us six more months. Next March, it will be something else.</p>
<p>The good news is that the Republicans have now run out of time. Everyone of them will have to run for election in 2008 with the same number of troops in Iraq we started with in 2003 and voters who know they have been lied to, time and time and time again.</p>
<p>Help me</p>
<p>A repeat from post 280…</p>
<p>I dont understand what is been said .is FF saying there were WMD in Iraq or is he saying there were no WMD in Iraq but the Bush Administration thought there were WMDs in Iraq…</p>
<p>I didn’t think it was that complicated.</p>
<p>Mini claimed that the Clinton administration created “the big lie” about WMD so that they could carry on with their genocidal practice of targeting Iraqi children. He claims that the UN inspectors supported this view. He also claimed that the UN inspectors were given complete access to anyplace that they wanted to inspect and that it was Clinton who arbitrarily pulled them out so that he could start bombing. </p>
<p>I merely pointed out (for a second time) that this was not the case by including direct quotes from various UN officials - including Scott Ritter who subsequently changed his tune (after being funded by Saddam to make a movie).</p>
<p>FF I appreciate with your comment that I didn’t think it was that complicated however the points you were and are trying to make are not that clear to me …</p>
<p>Now help me, are you saying . there were WMD in Iraq as the Bush Administration claimed or are you saying there were no WMD in Iraq, but the Bush Administration thought there were WMDs in Iraq and made their claims based on that thinking …</p>
<p>In this particular context, I am saying C - none of the above. During the timeframe that I am addressing, Bush was governor of Texas.</p>
<p>From post 297 .In this particular context, I am saying C - none of the above. During the timeframe that I am addressing, Bush was governor of Texas.</p>
<p>So address the time frame in which Bush was President of the United States . were there WMD in Iraq as the Bush Administration claimed and use as a justification for invading Iraq or were there were no WMD in Iraq, but the Bush Administration thought there were and made their claims based on that thinking, these claims then became a justification for invading Iraq …</p>