had enough — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 21:10:45 GMT

Not surprising from likes of a tnr/tapped alum but as usual disappointing. Put quotes around a few words and use “claimed.” That’s fine for the rubes but sadly not any better than every other ‘liberal’ site. Is there really a need for more misleading trash like this?

Here is Feingold “misrepresenting” the Levin amendment:
“I will not and cannot support any effort to give the United Nations Security Council Congress’s proxy in deciding whether or not to send American men and women into combat in Iraq. No Security Council vote can answer my questions about plans for securing WMD or American responsibilities in the wake of an invasion of Iraq. It is for this reason that I must oppose the proposal of the distinguished Senator from Michigan.” [Congressional Record, S10257-58, 10/10/02]”

From beginning to end this nothing but dribble and trash.

ackerman:
“Clinton’s statements during October 2002 have received much attention. But what she’s said in the intervening years demonstrates a vertigo-inducing lack of clarity. Her position tracked the political zeitgeist elegantly: cautiously in favor of the war before it started;”

October 10, 2002
Floor Speech of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
on S.J. Res. 45, A Resolution to Authorize the Use of
United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?

So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option.
http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

ackerman claims Hillary was cautiously in favor while the turth is much different.

More from oct 10 2002:
“Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament, and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular democratic state in the Middle East, one which could perhaps move the entire region toward democratic reform.
...
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of a million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping on the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock being tried for war crimes as we speak.”

So this it the kind of work we can expect from wi. Sad. Just more kewl kids throwing red meat to the rubes.

had enough — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 01:49:34 GMT

warrenmetzler,

Look at the next post of this one. So there you go.

The Washington Independent - U.S. news and politics - washingtonindependent.com: Comments by had enough