
Looks like on Iran Barack was right, and Hillary was wrong; and, with Kyl-Lieberman, wrong in exactly the same way she was wrong on Iraq, i.e., knowing what we know now, and knew in 2000, why would you trust Bush on anything? (Let alone Ho Lieberman, but that's another story.)
And what about that whole "World War III" thing? Can we stand down, now?
If you liked this post, buy the author some books.- lambert's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+


Front page




Comments
Hillary Got Hosed, Again
When will she learn? Same set up as 2002. Yes, the Democrats weeded out some of the worst aspects of the sense of the Senate resolution, but the basic instinct was all wrong - and it was the same old wrong instinct - to undermine what is genuinely in our security interest in favor of a quick infusion of I'm as tough as any Republican on our enemies into Democratic ranks - same thing that produced the 2002 AUMF in 2002. Repetition intentional. Come on, shout it out: 2002 Big mistake, Hillary, 2002, we haven't forgotten, Hillary. 2002, didn't you learn anything from that disaster, Hillary?
I just pray that Obama switches to the substance and stops with the she's dishonest, she's tricky, she and Bill have a machine, they're old hippies from the sixties, all those right wing tropes. The two of them, Hillary and Obama seem to have trapped themselves in a kindegarten sand box of their own making, even if the sand was produced during the three decades that has produced the right-wing takeover of the Republican party...or is it four decades by now?
At least she's stopped being inevitable.
some points on the NIE
- it's months old.
- the intel comms of both the house and senate saw it a while ago, and said nothing, made no stink in the press about it.
- bush was shown the important info in july, but kept on lying about it. no dem called him out.
- some dems have even reacted to the NIE by publically expressing their doubts about its authenticity.
bottom line: the dems want to bomb iran as much as the republicans do. not all of them, of course, but the ones on the intel and war oversight comms, as well as the leadership. because if they didn't want more war, they sure as shit wouldn't be acting in this fashion. bush has handed them all the ammo they would ever need to oppose additional war, and what do they do? hide, forget, or criticize it.
If Edwards voted for AUMF 2002 out of deference...
...then what explains Hillary's vote for Kyl-Lieberman?
CD puts it all in perspective with her discouraging pulling back the curtain. Atrios sez the Dems have been duped, again, but CD turns that on its head. We have been duped, again, by political Kabuki that only occasionally becomes transparent, as it did when last the Dems gave Bush all he wanted funding-wise on Iraq, as it did when Dems reauthorized FISA.
"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
"A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead
Measuring the drapes....
David Corn on HRC. Go read, but this struck me:
I've had some dealings with the more ferocious HRC true believers, over at Big Orange and elsewhere, and I don't think all of them serve HRC's cause well.
So going after Obama because of a paper he wrote in the third grade? Come on. What's up with that? Get a grip!
NOTE Of course, taking down the "inevitable" "frontrunner" is both a Village
blood sport and Yet Another Stale Narrative, so we could have seen this coming a mile off.
We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi