"Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated With CNN Response)

[trickblue]

Link (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php)

"Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated With CNN Response)

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her ******* page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

Now, Luisa is getting "swamped" with critical e-mails.

So what happened?

Writes Luisa:"CNN ran out of time and used me to "close" the debate with the pearls/diamonds question. Seconds later this girl comes up to me and says, "you gave our school a bad reputation.' Well, I had to explain to her that every question from the audience was pre-planned and censored. That's what the media does. See, the media chose what they wanted, not what the people or audience really wanted. That's politics; that's reality. So, if you want to read about real issues important to America--and the whole world, I suggest you pick up a copy of the Economist or the New York Times or some other independent source. If you want me to explain to you how the media works, I am more than happy to do so. But do not judge me or my integrity based on that question."Rivals to Clinton believe that the debate audience had a pro-Clinton tilt. UNLV was responsible for distributing most of the tickets.

In a separate post, Luisa provides the question she wanted to ask:Yucca Mountain, NV is the proposed site for the country's nuclear waste repository. Despite scientific evidence that it is a vulnerable site, the federal government continues to push for the plan to move forward. The evidence relied on is unsound and the risks involved in transporting high-level radioactive waste across the country are high. What will you [Sen. Clinton] do to ensure that the best site/s is/are chosen for the storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel?Sam Feist, the executive producer of the debate, said that the student was asked to choose another question because the candidates had already spent about ten minutes discussing Yucca Mountain.

"When her Yucca mountain question was asked, she was given the opportunity to ask another question, and my understanding is that the [diamond v. pearls] questions was her other question," Feist said. "She probably was disappointed, but we spent a lot of time with a bunch of different candidates on Yucca Mountain, and we were at the end of the debate."

Greg Sargent of TPM Election Central has a CNN spoxperson giving a slightly different story...

[iceberg]

where did CNN come up with the questions?

[trickblue]

where did CNN come up with the questions?

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/Hillary%20Clinton.jpg , maybe? ;)

[iceberg]

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/images/Hillary%20Clinton.jpg , maybe? ;)

i don't want to jump to conclusions - but if she said it would never happen again and this gets linked back to her, in the end she's letting something so stupid and trivial cost her far more than it should.

will be interesting to see how it unfolds.

[vta]

You're not jumping to conclusions, you're connecting the dots. Of course it'll be linked to her.

This is a ****ing disgrace and all these candidates are nothing more than, more of the same crap. From this leftover hippie who grew up, to Guiliani.


I haven't listened much to people like Brownback, Kucinich or Romney or even McCain, (so maybe they have), but he only one I've heard who hasn't simply 'listed' issues and actually offered suggestions is the one who will not stand a chance in hell: Ron Paul.

I'm glad this girl came forward with this and hope this and the last article set's a precedant of exposing these frauds.

Diamonds or Pearls, Hillary? You know you need to appeal to the fatty's at home on the couch.

[iceberg]

You're not jumping to conclusions, you're connecting the dots. Of course it'll be linked to her.

This is a ****ing disgrace and all these candidates are nothing more than, more of the same crap. From this leftover hippie who grew up, to Guiliani.


I haven't listened much to people like Brownback, Kucinich or Romney or even McCain, (so maybe they have), but he only one I've heard who hasn't simply 'listed' issues and actually offered suggestions is the one who will not stand a chance in hell: Ron Paul.

I'm glad this girl came forward with this and hope this and the last article set's a precedant of exposing these frauds.

Diamonds or Pearls, Hillary? You know you need to appeal to the fatty's at home on the couch.

i'm sure brittney spears loved the question.

like i said, those who cite her stance on the issues but forgive her lies...i thought bush let me down....

i'll never understand how if you know someone is a liar and far too willing to lie, how can you believe a promise she makes?

[vta]

i'm sure brittney spears loved the question.

like i said, those who cite her stance on the issues but forgive her lies...i thought bush let me down....

i'll never understand how if you know someone is a liar and far too willing to lie, how can you believe a promise she makes?

She has no stance on the issues; she simply lists them without stating what she will do about them. Another useless talking head.

[iceberg]

She has no stance on the issues; she simply lists them without stating what she will do about them. Another useless talking head.

gore kept saying "i can do better" but never once said how that i ever heard. then again i hated gore till his concession speech, that was one of the top speechs i've heard in all time.

i understand the need for change
i understand the distrust bush has brought upon himself
i understand the desire to put integrity and pride back into our leadership

i don't understand how hillary can accomplish any of those except that she's "not bush". admirable trait but no one in here *is* bush so we share the same qualification.

then again, i'd vote for you vta in a heartbeat. : ) is it too late for you to run?

[jterrell]

*** are you guys talking about?

None of this has anything to do with Hillary other than she was there.
CNN doesn't work for her and didn't ask her to sign off on any questions.

The young lady wrote a series of questions, they were approved and she was asked to use one of them by a CNN person, not Hillary.

If the audience was pro-Hillary perhaps that could easily be explained by the fact she is dominating the polls in Nevada but let's not allow a little fact distort the nonsense.

I am sure the fact these students get to read their name in the news has nothing to do with the fact they continue to talk about these questions as if they were held down and forced to ask them.

The first girl was given a planted question. This girl was told which of her questions to ask based upon what had already been covered. She decided to ask her questions of Hillary apparently regardless of what question she asked. I wonder why....

[jterrell]

She has no stance on the issues; she simply lists them without stating what she will do about them. Another useless talking head.

I am sure you are familiar with her platform but just in case you are not describe which topic you'd like to see her clarify. I think her stance on the issues was fairly well fleshed out in Nevada. CNN did a good job of asking Yes and No questions and forcing the candidates to take a side. She was actually much more clear then Edwards and Obama both of whom refused to answer yes and no questions.

Then again I love threads about a debate by people who didn't watch the debate, ROFL!

I saw a lot of retarded monkey chatter about Bill Clinton too; all he did was lead this country beautifully.

[iceberg]

well since hillary has said this was only a one time event and facts show otherwise, yet you don't see the "lie" - i gotta wonder.

clinton lead beautifully? was this when he was handed bin laden and said "nah"? was this when the cole was attacked and he said "oh, that's ok..." or is this him hitting on anything in a skirt?

clinton did some good things for this country and was a very charasmatic man - but beautifully?

[jterrell]

well since hillary has said this was only a one time event and facts show otherwise, yet you don't see the "lie" - i gotta wonder.

clinton lead beautifully? was this when he was handed bin laden and said "nah"? was this when the cole was attacked and he said "oh, that's ok..." or is this him hitting on anything in a skirt?

clinton did some good things for this country and was a very charasmatic man - but beautifully?

good lord ice are you mentally challenged?

how did hillary or her camp plant a question here?
how did she do anything at all wrong?

this girl created 5 questions at her own behest. She decided to name Hillary in her questions. Hillary and her camp had no idea who this girl was. Hillary did not decide who got called on or which questions were selected.

This did not come off as anything other than a stupid question. It didn't serve anyone's purposes.

CNN chose to pick this girl and her moronic question which was not a plus to Hillary at all.

CNN also had the chick asking questions whose husband works for Mitt Romney and who worked for Bush in the previous two elections... yet amazingly no crying over that huh.

[Jarv]

good lord ice are you mentally challenged?

how did hillary or her camp plant a question here?
how did she do anything at all wrong?

this girl created 5 questions at her own behest. She decided to name Hillary in her questions. Hillary and her camp had no idea who this girl was. Hillary did not decide who got called on or which questions were selected.

This did not come off as anything other than a stupid question. It didn't serve anyone's purposes.

CNN chose to pick this girl and her moronic question which was not a plus to Hillary at all.

CNN also had the chick asking questions whose husband works for Mitt Romney and who worked for Bush in the previous two elections... yet amazingly no crying over that huh.

Hilary is two faced and an idiot to boot. I can't believe someone as smart as you would even consider an idiot like her. You dissapoint me.

[iceberg]

good lord ice are you mentally challenged?

how did hillary or her camp plant a question here?
how did she do anything at all wrong?

this girl created 5 questions at her own behest. She decided to name Hillary in her questions. Hillary and her camp had no idea who this girl was. Hillary did not decide who got called on or which questions were selected.

This did not come off as anything other than a stupid question. It didn't serve anyone's purposes.

CNN chose to pick this girl and her moronic question which was not a plus to Hillary at all.

CNN also had the chick asking questions whose husband works for Mitt Romney and who worked for Bush in the previous two elections... yet amazingly no crying over that huh.

first of all - i'm not insulting you - back down some, ok?

i *never said she planted the questions*. for yellling at *my* comprehension you may wanna check your own levels.

i said "where did cnn get the quetions from"? others say yes she likely planted them, i asked where CNN got them.

clear?

then i said regardless of what happens, hillary is a liar - and cited her "known event" where she said it's never happened before, yet trick knows of 2 times.

*here* is where you should be saying that just because hillarys minions planted the questions hillary is blamess cause she can't or doesn't know. you're putting up the wrong wall here.

you're taking this pretty personal - ya know?

[jterrell]

Hilary is two faced and an idiot to boot. I can't believe someone as smart as you would even consider an idiot like her. You dissapoint me.

If you think you are half as smart as Hillary then you are sadly mistaken.

[jterrell]

first of all - i'm not insulting you - back down some, ok?

i *never said she planted the questions*. for yellling at *my* comprehension you may wanna check your own levels.

i said "where did cnn get the quetions from"? others say yes she likely planted them, i asked where CNN got them.

clear?

then i said regardless of what happens, hillary is a liar - and cited her "known event" where she said it's never happened before, yet trick knows of 2 times.

*here* is where you should be saying that just because hillarys minions planted the questions hillary is blamess cause she can't or doesn't know. you're putting up the wrong wall here.

you're taking this pretty personal - ya know?

Ice, I am frustrated at the nonsense you are posting here.

Essentially you are saying well if this really happened like this... but we KNOW it didn't happen like that.

You do not need to ask how CNN got the questions, the info is easily found in the articles. The girls herself wrote 5 questions. CNN asked if she wanted to ask the diamonds and pearls questions, she replied yes and then asked it. When her classmates attacked her and said she made UNLV sound stupid she responded on friggin ******* saying she wanted to ask the Yucca mountain question but was asked not to. This was the debate's final question. If was fluff and meaningless. Yucca mountain had been debated previously.

As to Bill, yes I stated beautifully. He had a budget surplus, the economy was booming, taxes were certainly not high, the court of public opinion world wide was on our side against the extremists of the world.

[iceberg]

Ice, I am frustrated at the nonsense you are posting here.

Essentially you are saying well if this really happened like this... but we KNOW it didn't happen like that.

You do not need to ask how CNN got the questions, the info is easily found in the articles. The girls herself wrote 5 questions. CNN asked if she wanted to ask the diamonds and pearls questions, she replied yes and then asked it. When her classmates attacked her and said she made UNLV sound stupid she responded on friggin ******* saying she wanted to ask the Yucca mountain question but was asked not to. This was the debate's final question. If was fluff and meaningless. Yucca mountain had been debated previously.

As to Bill, yes I stated beautifully. He had a budget surplus, the economy was booming, taxes were certainly not high, the court of public opinion world wide was on our side against the extremists of the world.

i get frustrated also, jt. i have NO IDEA how you can say hillary isn't a liar over the whole "it's never happened before" statement.

trick has seen 2 personaly.

you want to say her minions did it and not her, but do you really think hillary has *no idea* it was being done? if not then you're saying she's a smart one yet she never figures out her speeches are always spot on for the questions in the audience? she's a liar or she's ignorant. or trick is lying.

so i get frustrated you seem to use any handy reason to excuse hillary vs. take her at face value. like i said - it seems personal to you.

[iceberg]

As to Bill, yes I stated beautifully. He had a budget surplus, the economy was booming, taxes were certainly not high, the court of public opinion world wide was on our side against the extremists of the world.

and bush before him had nothing to do with setting any of that up? i lost most of my $ due to their hassling microsoft about putting a freakng browser in the OS. so i have a different perspective.

[jterrell]

i get frustrated also, jt. i have NO IDEA how you can say hillary isn't a liar over the whole "it's never happened before" statement.

trick has seen 2 personaly.

you want to say her minions did it and not her, but do you really think hillary has *no idea* it was being done? if not then you're saying she's a smart one yet she never figures out her speeches are always spot on for the questions in the audience? she's a liar or she's ignorant. or trick is lying.

so i get frustrated you seem to use any handy reason to excuse hillary vs. take her at face value. like i said - it seems personal to you.

Hillary's camp told Trick to choose questions off of a list.
That is her camp's choice. Trick never asked Hillary about it at all.
It is not unusual at all fo that to happen. Yes, Trick has stated it was unusual for him, but it is certianly well documented in other cases.

I am not trying to defend Hillary's honor here. I am sure she will gladly mislead or twist things. but what you are talking about is not proof of a lie. It is merely proof you can not leave it alone.

With this issue you are back peddling back to being so worried about a possible lie that you are making up possible scenarios that did not happen.

Sr. Bush did not balance the budget or even come close. Clinton did. Sr. Bush can not claim he balanced the budget, Bill can. Period. Sr. Bush has the highest deficits in history until shrub came along and smashed those records like a roided up Barry Bonds:)

[iceberg]

Hillary's camp told Trick to choose questions off of a list.
That is her camp's choice. Trick never asked Hillary about it at all.
It is not unusual at all fo that to happen. Yes, Trick has stated it was unusual for him, but it is certianly well documented in other cases.

I am not trying to defend Hillary's honor here. I am sure she will gladly mislead or twist things. but what you are talking about is not proof of a lie. It is merely proof you can not leave it alone.

With this issue you are back peddling back to being so worried about a possible lie that you are making up possible scenarios that did not happen.

Sr. Bush did not balance the budget or even come close. Clinton did. Sr. Bush can not claim he balanced the budget, Bill can. Period. Sr. Bush has the highest deficits in history until shrub came along and smashed those records like a roided up Barry Bonds:)

then why didn't she just say it wasn't unusual and done for specific reasons and explain it?

[jterrell]

then why didn't she just say it wasn't unusual and done for specific reasons and explain it?

She was not addressing anything except her Presidential campaign. She was saying the question was in fact planted by her campaign people but that it wasn't policy and wouldn't happen again. She never claimed she had never held that position nor did she claim she wouldn't feel free to publish lists of acceptable questions in the future outside of her Presidential campaign.

Whomever wins the election will in fact have reporters submit questions for approval or else publish lists of acceptable questions/topics. Each President does so. Planting a question is a bit more disingenuous than that but that is exactly what Trick is describing.

For the 999th time planting questions is flatly wrong. Nothing you are pointing to proves Hillary is lying.

IF someone were to call me a liar or a thief those would be fighting words. There would need to be real evidence of that.

[iceberg]

She was not addressing anything except her Presidential campaign. She was saying the question was in fact planted by her campaign people but that it wasn't policy and wouldn't happen again. She never claimed she had never held that position nor did she claim she wouldn't feel free to publish lists of acceptable questions in the future outside of her Presidential campaign.

Whomever wins the election will in fact have reporters submit questions for approval or else publish lists of acceptable questions/topics. Each President does so. Planting a question is a bit more disingenuous than that but that is exactly what Trick is describing.

For the 999th time planting questions is flatly wrong. Nothing you are pointing to proves Hillary is lying.

IF someone were to call me a liar or a thief those would be fighting words. There would need to be real evidence of that.

and i'll bet you bought it when bill clinton did a play on words to say he never had sex with monica. twisting things up seems to be what that family does. there has to be a reason for that and it's usually not a good one.

i guess it's true - if you want something bad enough you'll let yourself see anythng you want.

[vta]

I am sure you are familiar with her platform but just in case you are not describe which topic you'd like to see her clarify. I think her stance on the issues was fairly well fleshed out in Nevada. CNN did a good job of asking Yes and No questions and forcing the candidates to take a side. She was actually much more clear then Edwards and Obama both of whom refused to answer yes and no questions.

Then again I love threads about a debate by people who didn't watch the debate, ROFL!

I saw a lot of retarded monkey chatter about Bill Clinton too; all he did was lead this country beautifully.

Perhaps you should get up off the floor and stop laughing. I watched the debate and her stance is in no way proof that she has the answer. You in fact have a stance on the issues; does this qualify you to hold the office of President? Stance is simply posturing, not problem solving.

She is more of the same.

[vta]

*** are you guys talking about?

None of this has anything to do with Hillary other than she was there.
CNN doesn't work for her and didn't ask her to sign off on any questions

The young lady wrote a series of questions, they were approved and she was asked to use one of them by a CNN person, not Hillary..

Keep telling yourself that. It has everything to do with Hilary and the corruption of our political system, which she is very much a part of. If you think she, a powerful politician cannot influence her image via media lap dogs, you're exceedingly naive. She's not an 'every woman', just running on good intentions, she's a seasoned politician.

If the audience was pro-Hillary perhaps that could easily be explained by the fact she is dominating the polls in Nevada but let's not allow a little fact distort the nonsense.

What? What does this have to do with the topic?

I am sure the fact these students get to read their name in the news has nothing to do with the fact they continue to talk about these questions as if they were held down and forced to ask them.

This is the height of hilarity. Sure, it's simply grandstanding students, while an innocent politician is wrongly blamed. :lmao2:
We've come to the point where we're blaming the average American over the corrupt poilitican have we?

The first girl was given a planted question. This girl was told which of her questions to ask based upon what had already been covered. She decided to ask her questions of Hillary apparently regardless of what question she asked. I wonder why....

If any one running for President possesses an ounce of candor, no question by a citizen of this country is off limits, no matter how many times it's been raised and doesn't need to be replaced with such utter nonsense like 'Diamonds or Pearls'.

The fact that it's raised again should pretty much state the glaring fact that the previous answers to it were unacceptable and a vote holding member of our society wanted clarification. How dare she.

Pathetic.

[iceberg]

she lied. go figure.

[Jarv]

If you think you are half as smart as Hillary then you are sadly mistaken.

Have you met either of us in person ? How would you know how "smart" either of us is if not. If I have at least a 100 IQ rating, does Hilary have a 200 IQ rating ? Have you ever heard of a 200 IQ rating ? If I had a 2.9 QPA in college, can anyone double that ? Your Bush hatred blinds you young Jedi.

I have met Hilary in person, on my property no less while she was visiting my old neighbor and her old friend, Dick Morris. Shrew and power hungry was my impression, rocket scientist she was not.

There is a reason she doesn't allow the white house notes to be released to the public you know. As I said, I respect your knowledge from reading your post, I just can't understand your blind loyalty to this women. To the point of calling me half as smart as her, basically name calling on your part. That is a trait I've seen in Hilary, I did not expect it from you.

My parents and a lot of relatives live in the upstate NY adirondack mountains, I know how she treats her NY constituants who don't own a majority of the vote.

The Ike war machine and Clinton political machine have lots in common, its all about power which equals money, or vica verca.

[Jarv]

She was not addressing anything except her Presidential campaign. She was saying the question was in fact planted by her campaign people but that it wasn't policy and wouldn't happen again. She never claimed she had never held that position nor did she claim she wouldn't feel free to publish lists of acceptable questions in the future outside of her Presidential campaign.

Whomever wins the election will in fact have reporters submit questions for approval or else publish lists of acceptable questions/topics. Each President does so. Planting a question is a bit more disingenuous than that but that is exactly what Trick is describing.

For the 999th time planting questions is flatly wrong. Nothing you are pointing to proves Hillary is lying.

IF someone were to call me a liar or a thief those would be fighting words. There would need to be real evidence of that.

Yet you have no problem saying Bush lied with no proof ? Or do you have solid proof. Ironic, is it not ?

[jterrell]

and i'll bet you bought it when bill clinton did a play on words to say he never had sex with monica. twisting things up seems to be what that family does. there has to be a reason for that and it's usually not a good one.

i guess it's true - if you want something bad enough you'll let yourself see anythng you want.

I didn't care whether or not he had sex with Monica, but assumed he had.
I was more concerned with the decisions he was making actually running the country. I didn't think Congress had any right to ask him the question at all. It wasn't illegal and should have never been discussed at all. Monica was not a spy and there was no evidence of anything beyond a simple sexual relation between an intern and Bill.

I also do not care JFK kept a string of mistresses or that many other presidents had flings. I care about how they handled the business of running the country.

[jterrell]

Perhaps you should get up off the floor and stop laughing. I watched the debate and her stance is in no way proof that she has the answer. You in fact have a stance on the issues; does this qualify you to hold the office of President? Stance is simply posturing, not problem solving.

She is more of the same.

which stance do you want to know her take on vta?
it was a simple question that you didn't address.

funny how easily you fall into being guilty of what you accuse Hillary.

read your initial criticism and then ask what you want to know about hillary' takes.

bottom line is the criticism is a pile of crap.

[jterrell]

Have you met either of us in person ? How would you know how "smart" either of us is if not. If I have at least a 100 IQ rating, does Hilary have a 200 IQ rating ? Have you ever heard of a 200 IQ rating ? If I had a 2.9 QPA in college, can anyone double that ? Your Bush hatred blinds you young Jedi.

I have met Hilary in person, on my property no less while she was visiting my old neighbor and her old friend, Dick Morris. Shrew and power hungry was my impression, rocket scientist she was not.

There is a reason she doesn't allow the white house notes to be released to the public you know. As I said, I respect your knowledge from reading your post, I just can't understand your blind loyalty to this women. To the point of calling me half as smart as her, basically name calling on your part. That is a trait I've seen in Hilary, I did not expect it from you.

My parents and a lot of relatives live in the upstate NY adirondack mountains, I know how she treats her NY constituants who don't own a majority of the vote.

The Ike war machine and Clinton political machine have lots in common, its all about power which equals money, or vica verca.

Her intelligence and IQ are hardly in question and she has the academic records to back it up. If you'd like to compare those records then please do feel free to toss out all your academic achievements.

Something tells me you'll come up quite short. Then again the neo-cons have never been able to back up anything they claim. They just talk nonsense until other actually believe it.

But hey according to yourself, in your opinion, Hillary is not as smart as you, go figure!

[jterrell]

Yet you have no problem saying Bush lied with no proof ? Or do you have solid proof. Ironic, is it not ?

Bush lied about the war and we do have proof of that. He has lied in many other instances as well. I expect almost every President has lied. They believe they are doing so for good reasons.

Bush lied to get us to go to war with Iraq which makes it an insanely bad lie to tell.

For the record Bush has openly lied about his military record and many other things we know with absolutely certainty. Try googling Bush lies if you need help gathering examples.

But again the fact he has lied is not the overriding issue; the fact his policy sucks is.

When you stop sucking at Karl Rove's teet you'll see the the truth is Bush just sucked as a President. Something I forecasted long ago which rather makes me a little more credible than any idiot who thought Bush was going to be a good president and insanely more credible than any idiots who feel he has done a good job to this day.

You are your gibbering monkey's have had 6.5 years to run the country and it has been flushed down the drain. You took Clinton administration gains in virtually every area and tossed them overboard to go back to economic and military suicide.

[iceberg]

fair enough. but now take out bush and put in hillary to your query:

http://www.thebluesite.com/archives/000527.html
this one is interesting:
There is also the lie- well known to most- where Hillary claimed that her daughter Chelsea was in danger on September 11, claiming that her daughter went for a jog down to the towers themselves, and when the planes hit, she saw the buildings right there and was nearly in peril. Too bad again, since Chelsea totally debunked her mother's phony story in a magazine article. She was realy on the other side of the city, and was woken up with a phone call telling her to watch the news- and she never got anywhere near the towers, instead she was staring shocked at the tv screen most of the day.

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

this is bill, but if bush lied about WMD, how come we overlook things like this from our "beautifully ran country"?
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

1998 - wow. such a bold statement for action he never took. so is bill a liar now?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

he wasn't alone but we forgive those we believe in, it seems. or find a convenient excuse.

i could go on but i need to go grocery shopping before the game.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

[trickblue]

Her intelligence and IQ are hardly in question and she has the academic records to back it up. If you'd like to compare those records then please do feel free to toss out all your academic achievements.

Something tells me you'll come up quite short. Then again the neo-cons have never been able to back up anything they claim. They just talk nonsense until other actually believe it.

But hey according to yourself, in your opinion, Hillary is not as smart as you, go figure!

So does Bush but you don't espouse his education. I could be wrong, but if I'm not mistaken, he is our first president to ever have a master's degree. Two degrees from Ivy League institutions nonetheless.

Joseph, I respect you greatly but you are really coming off as an apologist here...

[jterrell]

So does Bush but you don't espouse his education. I could be wrong, but if I'm not mistaken, he is our first president to ever have a master's degree. Two degrees from Ivy League institutions nonetheless.

Joseph, I respect you greatly but you are really coming off as an apologist here...

Trick, seriously.

Bush got into Yale because of his father. He was never near the top of any of his classes. He did not have the required grades for Yale or for the flight school or really anything else. He got in based on called in favors then barely graduated in all instances, routinely being the bottom 25th of those who passed.

His entire career reads as that of a slacker or mediocre academic.

Hillary was near the top or at the top of every class. She has a law degree from Yale.

GW could not even make A's at a Texas public schools.

[jterrell]

fair enough. but now take out bush and put in hillary to your query:

http://www.thebluesite.com/archives/000527.html
this one is interesting:
There is also the lie- well known to most- where Hillary claimed that her daughter Chelsea was in danger on September 11, claiming that her daughter went for a jog down to the towers themselves, and when the planes hit, she saw the buildings right there and was nearly in peril. Too bad again, since Chelsea totally debunked her mother's phony story in a magazine article. She was realy on the other side of the city, and was woken up with a phone call telling her to watch the news- and she never got anywhere near the towers, instead she was staring shocked at the tv screen most of the day.

http://prorev.com/hillary.htm

this is bill, but if bush lied about WMD, how come we overlook things like this from our "beautifully ran country"?
"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

1998 - wow. such a bold statement for action he never took. so is bill a liar now?

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

he wasn't alone but we forgive those we believe in, it seems. or find a convenient excuse.

i could go on but i need to go grocery shopping before the game.
http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

ROFL. Ice, if you have proof such as the Chelsea comments that is fine. I am not indicating Hillary has never lied. I am indicating your harping on her comments about the planted question is not such proof.

As to the 2002 Hillary comments on WMD she was fed faulty reports from the intelligence community at the behest of the Bush administration which we now know based on memo's.

Dems did buy the WMD's so did the majority of the country; because we were lied to by experts.

There is a reason Libby was arrested and found guilty(something Bush flatly lied about by the way when he indicated he would charge any member of his administration proven to have been involved then later actually pardoned the guy), Rove resigned under threat of arrest and Cheney/Bush are dogged by impeachment questions.

[jterrell]

BTW Ice, that comment from Bill about the WMD go to show the real difference in Bill and George.

Bill used the United Nations and his leadership to get the WMD destroyed/dismantled while George committed us to a decade long war to do so.

Who do you think is more effective?

And no one ever suggested there were not WMD in Iraq in the mid 90's. We know there was but they were destroyed long before GW took office.

[Jarv]

Her intelligence and IQ are hardly in question and she has the academic records to back it up. If you'd like to compare those records then please do feel free to toss out all your academic achievements.

Something tells me you'll come up quite short. Then again the neo-cons have never been able to back up anything they claim. They just talk nonsense until other actually believe it.

But hey according to yourself, in your opinion, Hillary is not as smart as you, go figure!

If you read me post again I challenge you to find any quote saying I was smarter than her. Then you attack with name calling "neo-cons"....Because someone has a different opinion than yourself.

Typical of people who cannot back up their statements with facts, which is not what I expect from as a smart man as you.

I have done nothing but praise your intelligence but disagree with you on the point that Hilary is TWICE as smart as I. For my effort of open discussion with you I am called names.

A person who becomes over emotional in such debates loses a clear mind to look at facts rationally.

I'd have to agree that Hilary probably has obtained greater academic achievements that surpass mine (of course you state this without even knowing mine). I am currently debating the fact that she is TWICE as smart as I am. Another debate and topic could be spent on academic achievements vs common logic (See Abraham Lincoln), which I guess could qualify Hilary being twice as smart as old Abe....lol, which I assume you don't think to be the case.

I could retort that she is 4 times as smart as you, but having met her and reading your posts I cannot honestly say that, just to say that.

You see, meeting someone in person vs. seeing a TV persona is an entirely different scenario, IMHO even if I'm "not twice as smart as Hilary". Non scripted enviroments an general discussions can be a great guage on intelligence.

Hey, maybe you are right, I have met a lot of famous people in my life, not because of my academic achievements, but more to do with my Forrest Gump type luck.

[vta]

which stance do you want to know her take on vta?
it was a simple question that you didn't address.

funny how easily you fall into being guilty of what you accuse Hillary.

read your initial criticism and then ask what you want to know about hillary' takes.

bottom line is the criticism is a pile of crap.

You have not been paying attention; I know her 'stances'. You continue to address 'stance'; while I am concerned, not with opinions and posturing on certain issues, but with actual ideas and how she's going to make changes.

It stands to reason that when you say you're going to do something, the next question is undoubtedly, 'how?'. That's a question that has not been answered.

She has offered nothing but her stance, not her solution. Not in regard to the war. Not in regard to immigration. Not in regard to our economy. Not in regard to the Iranian conflict, which she says she believes is legitimate, while many call it Neo-Con saber rattling.

The closest she comes to clarifying is in regard to Universal Healthcare.

She will be more of the same. Neo-Con, Liberal, it's all the same: corrupt politicians. Let's not have favorites amongst two sides of the same coin.

The heady days of the Clinton administration are not going to return, because she shares the same name with the former President.

[iceberg]

ROFL. Ice, if you have proof such as the Chelsea comments that is fine. I am not indicating Hillary has never lied. I am indicating your harping on her comments about the planted question is not such proof.

As to the 2002 Hillary comments on WMD she was fed faulty reports from the intelligence community at the behest of the Bush administration which we now know based on memo's.

Dems did buy the WMD's so did the majority of the country; because we were lied to by experts.

There is a reason Libby was arrested and found guilty(something Bush flatly lied about by the way when he indicated he would charge any member of his administration proven to have been involved then later actually pardoned the guy), Rove resigned under threat of arrest and Cheney/Bush are dogged by impeachment questions.

and in 1998, who was in charge with which experts?

i wish you'd quit laughing and going for the 'superior' position, jt. at this point you're defending a liar by saying you don't care if she lies and then you laugh at the first few things i can find.

i'm sorry - if you've EVER bashed bush for being a liar, you can't let hillary go just because you hate bush and/or like her.

you have a standard for a reason and you simply can't move it around to suit your own purposes.

hillary has no problem doing that. i do. you say "do this and you'll see where bush is a liar!!!" yet i do it to hillary and suddenly lying is ok.

we call those hypocrites, normally, jt. your slamming bush and saying he's stupid, not just a liar, is a thin veil of an excuse just so you can continue to prop up your choice for office.

[iceberg]

BTW Ice, that comment from Bill about the WMD go to show the real difference in Bill and George.

Bill used the United Nations and his leadership to get the WMD destroyed/dismantled while George committed us to a decade long war to do so.

Who do you think is more effective?

And no one ever suggested there were not WMD in Iraq in the mid 90's. We know there was but they were destroyed long before GW took office.

this the same UN ignoring their own embargos and having illegal activity with the very country they're supposed to be monitoring/conducting restrictions with?

you run from one corrupt power to another as if the other is better simply because it's not the first. 2nd example of that now.

[iceberg]

ROFL. Ice, if you have proof such as the Chelsea comments that is fine. I am not indicating Hillary has never lied. I am indicating your harping on her comments about the planted question is not such proof.

As to the 2002 Hillary comments on WMD she was fed faulty reports from the intelligence community at the behest of the Bush administration which we now know based on memo's.

Dems did buy the WMD's so did the majority of the country; because we were lied to by experts.

There is a reason Libby was arrested and found guilty(something Bush flatly lied about by the way when he indicated he would charge any member of his administration proven to have been involved then later actually pardoned the guy), Rove resigned under threat of arrest and Cheney/Bush are dogged by impeachment questions.

again, how come hillary can lie and it's ok yet bush does it and you call him out.

also, WHY IN THE WORLD would anyone lie about the naming of their daughter? would you? why did she?

[trickblue]

Trick, seriously.

Bush got into Yale because of his father. He was never near the top of any of his classes. He did not have the required grades for Yale or for the flight school or really anything else. He got in based on called in favors then barely graduated in all instances, routinely being the bottom 25th of those who passed.

His entire career reads as that of a slacker or mediocre academic.

Hillary was near the top or at the top of every class. She has a law degree from Yale.

GW could not even make A's at a Texas public schools.

That's what I mean jt... you are qualifying everything...

Yeah, but... yeah, but...

Einstein failed public school you know, and one thing I have found in my life is that those that are the considered "ultra smart" such as you describe Hillary, lack any common sense whatsoever...

We've had several presidents considered intellectuals, and for the most part they had failed administrations...

[iceberg]

That's what I mean jt... you are qualifying everything...

Yeah, but... yeah, but...

Einstein failed public school you know, and one thing I have found in my life is that those that are the considered "ultra smart" such as you describe Hillary, lack any common sense whatsoever...

We've had several presidents considered intellectuals, and for the most part they had failed administrations...

public schools are for the most part designed to get people through in the most common fashion. for the most part it works and when it doesn't, people get quick to call the "different" one the problem and *not* instead try to figure out why and work a little harder to do so.

while i'm surfing today trick, can you name a few of these presidents? i'd like to just look 'em up and do some research.

[trickblue]

public schools are for the most part designed to get people through in the most common fashion. for the most part it works and when it doesn't, people get quick to call the "different" one the problem and *not* instead try to figure out why and work a little harder to do so.

while i'm surfing today trick, can you name a few of these presidents? i'd like to just look 'em up and do some research.

Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Abraham Lincoln are the ones I can think of for right now...

[iceberg]

Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy Carter, John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Ulysses S. Grant, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Calvin Coolidge, Herbert Hoover, and Abraham Lincoln are the ones I can think of for right now...

heh, well i don't wanna do that much research but that gives me a good crosssection to play with. : )

[BrAinPaiNt]

That's what I mean jt... you are qualifying everything...

Yeah, but... yeah, but...

Einstein failed public school you know, and one thing I have found in my life is that those that are the considered "ultra smart" such as you describe Hillary, lack any common sense whatsoever...

We've had several presidents considered intellectuals, and for the most part they had failed administrations...

In the future. Can we never EVER bring up Einstein when talking Bush or Hillary. Not even in a convoluted sense. Unless we are talking Norman Einstein.

Thanks:D

[iceberg]

In the future. Can we never EVER bring up Einstein when talking Bush or Hillary. Not even in a convoluted sense. Unless we are talking Norman Einstein.

Thanks:D

kinda like bringing up romo in a carter, hutch debate, huh?

[BrAinPaiNt]

kinda like bringing up romo in a carter, hutch debate, huh?

Well for bringing up Carter and Hutch I curse your crotch with a thousand fleas of a camel. :p: ;)

[iceberg]

Well for bringing up Carter and Hutch I curse your crotch with a thousand fleas of a camel. :p: ;)

well that explains the recent itch...

[Rack Bauer]

Wow... I admittedly don't even know what the hell is going on in here, but even I can see jterrel is a Hilary Apologist.

[Doomsday]

Wow... I admittedly don't even know what the hell is going on in here, but even I can see jterrel is a Hilary Apologist.

He is her #1 fan!

[Viper]

He is her #1 fan!

no... ex-lover

[jterrell]

If you read me post again I challenge you to find any quote saying I was smarter than her. Then you attack with name calling "neo-cons"....Because someone has a different opinion than yourself.

Typical of people who cannot back up their statements with facts, which is not what I expect from as a smart man as you.

I have done nothing but praise your intelligence but disagree with you on the point that Hilary is TWICE as smart as I. For my effort of open discussion with you I am called names.

A person who becomes over emotional in such debates loses a clear mind to look at facts rationally.

I'd have to agree that Hilary probably has obtained greater academic achievements that surpass mine (of course you state this without even knowing mine). I am currently debating the fact that she is TWICE as smart as I am. Another debate and topic could be spent on academic achievements vs common logic (See Abraham Lincoln), which I guess could qualify Hilary being twice as smart as old Abe....lol, which I assume you don't think to be the case.

I could retort that she is 4 times as smart as you, but having met her and reading your posts I cannot honestly say that, just to say that.

You see, meeting someone in person vs. seeing a TV persona is an entirely different scenario, IMHO even if I'm "not twice as smart as Hilary". Non scripted enviroments an general discussions can be a great guage on intelligence.

Hey, maybe you are right, I have met a lot of famous people in my life, not because of my academic achievements, but more to do with my Forrest Gump type luck.

Jarv,

You stated:
Hilary is two faced and an idiot to boot

Now Hilary may be but Hillary Clinton is not.... At least she is not the idiot part.
Calling her an idiot does leave one to assume you consider yourself smarter than her which is what I challenged.

Hillary is a lot of things but dumb is not one of them. Her intelligence and experience is exactly why she will get my vote. I have had enough of idiots in the White House.

Are you not a Neo-Conservative? Did you not espouse the thoughts of Rove and vote for Bush?

And as an aside to Trick here because it really isn't worthy of a separate post: Einstein was not a bumbling idiot who says nuke-u-lar and various other garbled phrases.

[BrAinPaiNt]

no... ex-lover

JT is a man, not a woman. :D

[Jarv]

Jarv,

You stated:
Hilary is two faced and an idiot to boot

Now Hilary may be but Hillary Clinton is not.... At least she is not the idiot part.
Calling her an idiot does leave one to assume you consider yourself smarter than her which is what I challenged.

Hillary is a lot of things but dumb is not one of them. Her intelligence and experience is exactly why she will get my vote. I have had enough of idiots in the White House.

Are you not a Neo-Conservative? Did you not espouse the thoughts of Rove and vote for Bush?

And as an aside to Trick here because it really isn't worthy of a separate post: Einstein was not a bumbling idiot who says nuke-u-lar and various other garbled phrases.

Hillary's Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded young Jedi. Her "experience" in politics is limitted to being a jr. senator in a high profile state for people she has no regard for. If Rudi did not pull out of that election, due to illness she wouldn't even be there.

As for her time in the white house as 1st lady, well I would easily vote for Laura Bush over Hilary as my top 1st lady, at least she is a lady, not a shreaking shrill.

Hillary gets no grades on experience from the white house duties unless they release her white house notes, which for some strange reason (failed health care program, probably many other failed programs), she refuses to do. If she wants to use that time as counted government experience at least show and explain what you were working on, wonder why she won't release those notes. That alone takes out my vote.

Hillary learn the political game from 2 of the best, husband Bill and Dick Morris. That is the last person we need running our government, a political savy jr senator with little or no REAL experience.

Really think about it JT, where does she stand on the issues, its always which ever way the wind is blowing. Have you ever seen her take a stand on an issue that was against public opinion ? She has no moral fabric...and I'm not talking religion, although plenty of press photo opps of her and Bill leaving church on Sundays during his days as president. Funny that I don't see those photo's nowadays nw that religion is a bad thing on the far left.

She can't answer a direct question in a debate until 24 hours later, why because she has to confer with her political analyst to see which way the political wing is blowing on that issue AT THAT TIME.

Barack Obama has twice the integraty than Hillary, I may disagree where he stands on a lot of issues, yes I am a republican, but I at least respect the man for standing by and for his issues. ...As I respect you for standing by Hillary.

If only she would stand on one side of a fence and draw a line. This is what I stand for speech would be real nice, but we will never hear it because she always leaves herself an out if the winds shift.

Bottom line, very little experience in government, which actually isn't a bad thing since I'm sick of career politicians. Won't take a stand and stick to it and is just in the game for power and fame..

JT, what are the top ten things that she has actually accomplished ?

[jterrell]

Hillary's Jedi mind tricks only work on the weak minded young Jedi. Her "experience" in politics is limitted to being a jr. senator in a high profile state for people she has no regard for. If Rudi did not pull out of that election, due to illness she wouldn't even be there.

As for her time in the white house as 1st lady, well I would easily vote for Laura Bush over Hilary as my top 1st lady, at least she is a lady, not a shreaking shrill.

Hillary gets no grades on experience from the white house duties unless they release her white house notes, which for some strange reason (failed health care program, probably many other failed programs), she refuses to do. If she wants to use that time as counted government experience at least show and explain what you were working on, wonder why she won't release those notes. That alone takes out my vote.

Hillary learn the political game from 2 of the best, husband Bill and Dick Morris. That is the last person we need running our government, a political savy jr senator with little or no REAL experience.

Really think about it JT, where does she stand on the issues, its always which ever way the wind is blowing. Have you ever seen her take a stand on an issue that was against public opinion ? She has no moral fabric...and I'm not talking religion, although plenty of press photo opps of her and Bill leaving church on Sundays during his days as president. Funny that I don't see those photo's nowadays nw that religion is a bad thing on the far left.

She can't answer a direct question in a debate until 24 hours later, why because she has to confer with her political analyst to see which way the political wing is blowing on that issue AT THAT TIME.

Barack Obama has twice the integraty than Hillary, I may disagree where he stands on a lot of issues, yes I am a republican, but I at least respect the man for standing by and for his issues. ...As I respect you for standing by Hillary.

If only she would stand on one side of a fence and draw a line. This is what I stand for speech would be real nice, but we will never hear it because she always leaves herself an out if the winds shift.

Bottom line, very little experience in government, which actually isn't a bad thing since I'm sick of career politicians. Won't take a stand and stick to it and is just in the game for power and fame..

JT, what are the top ten things that she has actually accomplished ?

This is good stuff Jarv.

I am always open to intelligent discussion on any of the candidates but especially on those I favor:)

I like Dick Morris and have a man crush on Bill Clinton so those names will not drive me away:) I understand conservatives dislike them but for my purposes they are the bees knees and cat's meow.

Onto the meat:

10 Hillary accomplishments.

1. Married Bill.
2. Was the most policy-affecting First Lady in US History.
3. As First Lady held cabinet level cache with Presidency that balanced the budget and saw economic boom while providing good international relations.
4. Was first person in US history to draft a health care plan to cover all Americans.
5. Pushing continued child advocacy. Was a force behind the CHIPs program and adoption legislation that more than doubled adoption rates out of foster care.
6. Was amongst first people to challenge Richard Nixon charging he was using tactics that are illegal in his contest with Sen Rockefeller. Left Repub party after Nixon won that primary and became attorney on the side of prosecution in Watergate impeachment hearings.
7. As Arkansas First Lady introduced HIPPY. Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters, that provide new parents with support and guidance in caring for their children. that program has spread about the US.
8. She has visited both Pakistan and Afghanistan including asking the current President to send a US envoy to Pakistan/Afghanistan to advise Mussharaf(sp?) in advance of this current mess.
9. Became Senator for the state of NY with many well publicized votes.
10. as Senator has become a member of these commitees:

Senate Armed Services Committee
Subcommittees:
* Airland
* Emerging Threats and Capabilities
* Readiness and Management Support

Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Subcommittees:
* Subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health (Chair)
* Subcommittee Clean Air and Nuclear Safety
* Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions
Subcommittees:
* Children and Families
* Employment & Workplace Safety


Now Jarv I think it is only fair to ask you to respond in kind with the top 10 accomplishments of your favorite presidential candidate.

[Rack Bauer]

How is "Marrying Bill" an accomplishment? And #1 no less.

[jterrell]

How is "Marrying Bill" an accomplishment? And #1 no less.

That is always listed 1st so I figured I'd follow suit:)

Bill Clinton was a great President. Being part of his administration is the biggest feather in her cap no matter how you phrase it.

But don't worry pretty soon number 1 will be "getting elected President of the United States" :eek:

[ConcordCowboy]

Did I miss something?

It says...Student blasts CNN...NOT Hillary.

Until it's proven...Hillary is innocent and CNN is to blame.

Like I've said before on this subject...if you like Hillary...nothing to see here...it's a tempest in a teapot.

If you dislike Hillary...blood in the water to the sharks.

Ah politics...aren't they wonderful.

:shoot6:

[iceberg]

again, how come hillary can lie and it's ok yet bush does it and you call him out.

also, WHY IN THE WORLD would anyone lie about the naming of their daughter? would you? why did she?

That is always listed 1st so I figured I'd follow suit:)

Bill Clinton was a great President. Being part of his administration is the biggest feather in her cap no matter how you phrase it.

But don't worry pretty soon number 1 will be "getting elected President of the United States" :eek:

you ROFL'd on my saying hilliary was a liar cause of her daughter naming issue, but like hillary, you didn't address why it's ok.

still waiting.

as for her medical plan - my father spent 40+ years as a hospital administrator for his career and in the medical field. what little he could glean from what hillary wanted to do he said would fail miserably.

now what experience does she have in the medical field to make these calls? i'm sure whatever she did it will outshine 40 years of my fathers experience cause she's wonderwoman, batgirl and she-hulk all rolled up into one for you. but if you could address these two for me i'd appreciate it.

so far i can't tell if you think lying is ok or a bad thing. please also clarify that one point for me.

[jterrell]

BTW Jarv, not forgetting the rest of your post I just have to squeeze in some work in there:)


Really think about it JT, where does she stand on the issues, its always which ever way the wind is blowing. Have you ever seen her take a stand on an issue that was against public opinion ? She has no moral fabric...and I'm not talking religion, although plenty of press photo opps of her and Bill leaving church on Sundays during his days as president. Funny that I don't see those photo's nowadays nw that religion is a bad thing on the far left.

I think her stand on the issues is clear. Often times not in line with the Democratic party. She has obviously taken a stand previously that was against public opinion. She tried to create a universal health care system that was extremely unpopular. The big money lobbies whooped her head severely there. She is a big proponent of kids and families. She always has been. She doesn't charge head first into making these crazy statements with no regards to the consequences but that is because she is a career lawyer and politician. You are not going to get Ross Perot type brutal honestly because she understands the extreme takes are going to get beaten down no matter the value in them.

She has photo ops regularly at church or leaving churches. The most recent was no more than 2 months ago at a predominately black church. She is going to push that she is a Christian hardcore. She wants to win the black vote and that is where you get the votes. Bush hit black churches really hard in the months before the last election telling them Kerry was a gay loving Catholic and he fared well amongst black voters because of it. They learned from Bill, the master there.

If you want to know where she stands on something, what issue is it? I think she has published enough info for me to help point you to her take.

If we play the on the issues game amongst ourselves Hillary will be in a very moderate position. She'll be for a continued presence in Iraq via a base but not a continued war effort. She'll be for mandatory universal health care coverage but not for raising taxes on FICA income above 97.5K to pay for it. She'll be for energy reforms and investing in science. She'll be for fiscal responsibility(btw she is the only Democratic candidate to utter the words fiscal responsibility).

[iceberg]

Did I miss something?

It says...Student blasts CNN...NOT Hillary.

Until it's proven...Hillary is innocent and CNN is to blame.

Like I've said before on this subject...if you like Hillary...nothing to see here...it's a tempest in a teapot.

If you dislike Hillary...blood in the water to the sharks.

Ah politics...aren't they wonderful.

:shoot6:

and the 1st question after the article is still open - where did CNN get the questions?

then, if this is "ok" and standard policy, why does hillary lie about it?

[iceberg]

She has photo ops regularly at church or leaving churches. The most recent was no more than 2 months ago at a predominately black church. She is going to push that she is a Christian hardcore. She wants to win the black vote and that is where you get the votes. Bush hit black churches really hard in the months before the last election telling them Kerry was a gay loving Catholic and he fared well amongst black voters because of it. They learned from Bill, the master there.


to me - if she's a christian "hardcore" - she'd not need to push it. her actions would push it alone. since one of the basic foundations of christians is the 10 commandments, i'd think 'hardcore' people would honor the "thou shall not lie". so if she's so photo op happy, she's selling an image she isn't naturally cause she *wants* you to see that.

just my humble opinion.

[jterrell]

you ROFL'd on my saying hilliary was a liar cause of her daughter naming issue, but like hillary, you didn't address why it's ok.

still waiting.

as for her medical plan - my father spent 40+ years as a hospital administrator for his career and in the medical field. what little he could glean from what hillary wanted to do he said would fail miserably.

now what experience does she have in the medical field to make these calls? i'm sure whatever she did it will outshine 40 years of my fathers experience cause she's wonderwoman, batgirl and she-hulk all rolled up into one for you. but if you could address these two for me i'd appreciate it.

so far i can't tell if you think lying is ok or a bad thing. please also clarify that one point for me.

I rofl'd at the fact you were bringing up a different point.

I have not read all the info about this alleged Chelsea incident so really can't comment much about that specifically. I am sure Hillary has lied. Heck I have lied. Hopefully not anytime recently and hopefully only for the right reasons. The link you published was for rightwingnews... I wouldn't go there if they were giving away money for every page hit. I have never tried to hold up Hillary as some moral demigod.

My issue was with the one instance you wanted to continue bringing up that detailed only that Hillary said her campaign policy was not to plant questions and that it was a mistake. You pointed to past occurrences when she was not a candidate and used that as an example of a lie but it was not because they are totally different circumstances. Could she has been more forthright and open with her answer? Sure. But what she did was to shut it down with an "it will not happen again" and move on.

The ADA was amongst the huge lobby that opposed Hillary's universal health care bill and were spending money attacking it. If one can not see why she would only carefully deal with them then intelligent political debate is probably not possible.

[iceberg]

I rofl'd at the fact you were bringing up a different point.

I have not read all the info about this alleged Chelsea incident so really can't comment much about that specifically. I am sure Hillary has lied. Heck I have lied. Hopefully not anytime recently and hopefully only for the right reasons. The link you published was for rightwingnews... I wouldn't go there if they were giving away money for every page hit. I have never tried to hold up Hillary as some moral demigod.

My issue was with the one instance you wanted to continue bringing up that detailed only that Hillary said her campaign policy was not to plant questions and that it was a mistake. You pointed to past occurrences when she was not a candidate and used that as an example of a lie but it was not because they are totally different circumstances. Could she has been more forthright and open with her answer? Sure. But what she did was to shut it down with an "it will not happen again" and move on.

The ADA was amongst the huge lobby that opposed Hillary's universal health care bill and were spending money attacking it. If one can not see why she would only carefully deal with them then intelligent political debate is probably not possible.

ikeep looking for examples mostly because you say hillary didn't lie.

she said her and her campaign doesn't do this and had never done it before.

you said that was her underlings, not her doing it.

is that still your stance? i don't want to sidetrack and jump around but rather focus on:

1. is lying ok or not ok?
2. do you hold hillary responsible for what her campaign does?

[jterrell]

and the 1st question after the article is still open - where did CNN get the questions?

then, if this is "ok" and standard policy, why does hillary lie about it?

for the love of gawd bro that question has been answered 100 times over.

the girl submitted 5 questions to cnn.
cnn asked her if she wanted to ask HER diamonds and pearls question; she said yes and then asked it.

it was the dumbest question of the debate and did hillary no favors.
this was a typical sorority girl question and diamonds and pearls is often associated with various sororities. something tells me hillary was not a member of one of those sororities... lol.

[ConcordCowboy]

[INDENT]Link (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/11/diamond_v_pearl_student_blasts_1.php)

"Diamonds v. Pearls" Student Blasts CNN (Updated With CNN Response)

Maria Luisa, the UNLV student who asked Hillary Clinton whether she preferred "diamonds or pearls" at last night's debate wrote on her ******* page this morning that CNN forced her to ask the frilly question instead of a pre-approved query about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN," Luisa writes. "I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."




and the 1st question after the article is still open - where did CNN get the questions?



The questions came from the girl herself.

She was asked to submit five questions...Including a lighthearted one...CNN ran out of time and decided to end the debate with one of the lighthearted questions.

The girl knew that her question that SHE submitted was lighthearted and approved by CNN...NOT Hillary.

She then on her own asked that question. If she didn't want to ask it decline.

But don't ***** about it after you submitted the question and then ASKED it.

So far all I've read here is CNN was to blame...NOT Hillary.

[jterrell]

to me - if she's a christian "hardcore" - she'd not need to push it. her actions would push it alone. since one of the basic foundations of christians is the 10 commandments, i'd think 'hardcore' people would honor the "thou shall not lie". so if she's so photo op happy, she's selling an image she isn't naturally cause she *wants* you to see that.

just my humble opinion.

hillary has been going to church her entire life; most the vast majority of it to the same church. if she is faking it, she is certainly committed.

every presidential candidate will push their beliefs and church attendance as Bush did. It is a voting issue for many people.

[iceberg]

The questions came from the girl herself.

She was asked to submit five questions...Including a lighthearted one...CNN ran out of time and decided to end the debate with one of the lighthearted questions.

The girl knew that her question that SHE submitted was lighthearted and approved by CNN...NOT Hillary.

She then on her own asked that question. If she didn't want to ask it decline.

But don't ***** about it after you submitted the question and then ASKED it.

So far all I've read here is CNN was to blame...NOT Hillary.


fair enough.

[iceberg]

hillary has been going to church her entire life; most the vast majority of it to the same church. if she is faking it, she is certainly committed.

every presidential candidate will push their beliefs and church attendance as Bush did. It is a voting issue for many people.

is it ok for her to lie? that one isn't answered yet.

[BrAinPaiNt]

is it ok for her to lie? that one isn't answered yet.

Is it ok for any politician to lie?

Seriously guy, you got some major wood for this topic going or what?

I mean I think she lies, I would not trust her with anything...but at the same time I am not going to make a gaggle of posts asking the same lie question over and over.

Find me one politician that has a chance to win that does not lie.

If that were the case we would never elect anyone. Because we sure are not electing ethical people.

[vta]

Is it ok for any politician to lie?

Seriously guy, you got some major wood for this topic going or what?

I mean I think she lies, I would not trust her with anything...but at the same time I am not going to make a gaggle of posts asking the same lie question over and over.

Find me one politician that has a chance to win that does not lie.

If that were the case we would never elect anyone. Because we sure are not electing ethical people.

You hit it on the head: we're not electing ethical people. And why not?
Ice is harping on the obvious, my corruption is better than your corruption tact that's being taken here.

It's terrible. Bush lied and has been rightly vilified. Clinton lied and it's hey don't they all, *wink wink*?

After what this country has gone through because this administration has so soundly divided it, how can anyone defend any candidate of either party with such intensity? How can anyone stomach another seasoned liar?

How can anyone not be drooling for a radical departure from these two groups of phonies?

[jterrell]

is it ok for her to lie? that one isn't answered yet.

I answered that long ago and said yes it was depending upon the situation and case.

Do you think every lie ever told was bad?
Do you think a President should tell us everything he knows and be fully truthful with us about all things?

When Sr. Bush said there would be no new taxes then raised taxes was that a lie or an unfortunate mistake?

[iceberg]

Is it ok for any politician to lie?

Seriously guy, you got some major wood for this topic going or what?

I mean I think she lies, I would not trust her with anything...but at the same time I am not going to make a gaggle of posts asking the same lie question over and over.

Find me one politician that has a chance to win that does not lie.

If that were the case we would never elect anyone. Because we sure are not electing ethical people.

which is my point in the end. we've heard nothing but what a liar bush is for how many years now? yet when hillary doesit, it's ok. my question then is why? because you like the person? cause you think they'll help you just the same? so much stock was put into bush lying it was a broken record. now, why if such an action is so reprehensible, are we willing to forgive hillary for the same action?

my point isn't whether or not a president lies, my point is whether or not you feel the action is acceptable or not. if ok for one in my mind it must be ok for another.

I answered that long ago and said yes it was depending upon the situation and case.

Do you think every lie ever told was bad?
Do you think a President should tell us everything he knows and be fully truthful with us about all things?

When Sr. Bush said there would be no new taxes then raised taxes was that a lie or an unfortunate mistake?

jt - you're asking the wrong guy. i may be wrong and make unfortunate mistakes, but i'm not much into lying. my friends tell me they know when i lie cause i tell 'em minutes later and am usually just jokin around with them.

it's important that my friends and those i work with trust me. if i lie i can't expect them to believe me. i know some liars at work and what they say goes in one ear and out the other and i just move on.

the pattern here that bothers me is an action can be labled bad for one to do but ok for another.

i'm an "it's either right or wrong" person and rarely is that situational unless you simply want it to be. that's all.

i'll quit harping on it now. thanks for the mostly civil discourse.

[iceberg]

You hit it on the head: we're not electing ethical people. And why not?
Ice is harping on the obvious, my corruption is better than your corruption tact that's being taken here.

It's terrible. Bush lied and has been rightly vilified. Clinton lied and it's hey don't they all, *wink wink*?

After what this country has gone through because this administration has so soundly divided it, how can anyone defend any candidate of either party with such intensity? How can anyone stomach another seasoned liar?

How can anyone not be drooling for a radical departure from these two groups of phonies?

thanks, vta. this is another point i've been trying to make. 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' as i've said.

corruption is corruption and i'm tired of it. if you blast one for it then blast all who do it. utnil *we all* demand better and vote (or not vote) in that light, we'll get more of the same.

[jterrell]

You hit it on the head: we're not electing ethical people. And why not?
Ice is harping on the obvious, my corruption is better than your corruption tact that's being taken here.

It's terrible. Bush lied and has been rightly vilified. Clinton lied and it's hey don't they all, *wink wink*?

After what this country has gone through because this administration has so soundly divided it, how can anyone defend any candidate of either party with such intensity? How can anyone stomach another seasoned liar?

How can anyone not be drooling for a radical departure from these two groups of phonies?

In another words Repubs want to say yea we screwed up but we can't help it so just give us another 4 more years of your votes???

Bush = Clinton??? HAHAHAHAHA

Please, dude, try not insult our intelligence to that extent.

Please excuse my candid take but either show me the honest politician with strong policy I can support or just shut up about this topic.

Hillary is a known commodity and those who can't man up and admit they were wrong are going to waste all their energy painting her with that "slick willie" brush while ignoring the fact their party gave us 8 years of total crap leadership and instead of looking at the positive effect of 8 years of Clinton leadership are going to spread vitriol at the only candidate with a legitimate record of political success at more than a state level.

[iceberg]

In another words Repubs want to say yea we screwed up but we can't help it so just give us another 4 more years of your votes???

Bush = Clinton??? HAHAHAHAHA

Please, dude, try not insult our intelligence to that extent.

Please excuse my candid take but either show me the honest politician with strong policy I can support or just shut up about this topic.

Hillary is a known commodity and those who can't man up and admit they were wrong are going to waste all their energy painting her with that "slick willie" brush while ignoring the fact their party gave us 8 years of total crap leadership and instead of looking at the positive effect of 8 years of Clinton leadership are going to spread vitriol at the only candidate with a legitimate record of political success at more than a state level.

"man up"? if total crap, then how prepared is the democratic party if they couldn't beat "total crap"? twice?

didn't you say ron paul was honest? he wants nothing more than the constitution to the strictest level - weak policy?

jt - i can see you'll defend the clintons to your grave and if that's your choice, fine. but calling out those who hunger for more by saying "man up and admit you're wrong" - pretty arrogant.

the only thing i've ever seen such statements do is divide.

i'm tired of the great divide.

[ConcordCowboy]

Is it ok for any politician to lie?

Seriously guy, you got some major wood for this topic going or what?

I mean I think she lies, I would not trust her with anything...but at the same time I am not going to make a gaggle of posts asking the same lie question over and over.

Find me one politician that has a chance to win that does not lie.

If that were the case we would never elect anyone. Because we sure are not electing ethical people.

They all do it and if that's a cop out oh well.

She's not doing what every other elected and probably non elected Politician hasn't done many times.

Sorry but I'm not going to burn her at the stake or say she's the Devil Incarnate or she's not worthy of the Oval Office because of planting some questions...not going to happen.

[iceberg]

They all do it and if that's a cop out oh well.

She's not doing what every other elected and probably non elected Politician hasn't done many times.

Sorry but I'm not going to burn her at the stake or say she's the Devil Incarnate or she's not worthy of the Oval Office because of planting some questions...not going to happen.

planting questions i don't care about.

telling me what i want to hear cause the truth she thinks i can't handle, i care.

like i said, if we accept it as a crappy game we can't win, we never will. if we can find ways for 1 turd to be better than the other, we'll be stuck with some form of turd.

it's embarassing.

[jterrell]

"man up"? if total crap, then how prepared is the democratic party if they couldn't beat "total crap"? twice?

didn't you say ron paul was honest? he wants nothing more than the constitution to the strictest level - weak policy?

jt - i can see you'll defend the clintons to your grave and if that's your choice, fine. but calling out those who hunger for more by saying "man up and admit you're wrong" - pretty arrogant.

the only thing i've ever seen such statements do is divide.

i'm tired of the great divide.

Ice,
I respect Ron Paul a great deal but I think his policy is very flawed and immature. I would not consider it strong. If I did consider it strong I would back him as fiercely as I do Hillary. I have already detailed why his tax plan would send us into an economic tailspin not unlike the great Depression. And I am far from "laissez-faire" economics which I believe most people get past as a freshman in college.

You are tired of the Great Divide yet waste 100 posts bashing Hillary? Nice try but rather contrary to your actions here.

What political issue do you differ from Hillary on? Or can we even talk political issues at all? How do we branch divides if not by agreeing to meet in the middle on policy?

Hillary is the most moderate Democratic candidate and thus really the only possible person to get my vote at this point.

You may not trust her but I dang sure do not trust the party that gave us Tom DeLay, Dan Quayle and George W. Bush.

Any divide closing will come from moderate candidates such as Kerry, McCain, Guiliani and yes Hillary.

The Democrats were simply outmatched in the political machine as a party in the prior two elections but bonehead with the celebrity name still barely won both elections. Dems knew their time would come and it has now. Not only is Hillary the strongest candidate for this election but the future is bright for Dems with Obama and to some extent Edwards.

[vta]

In another words Repubs want to say yea we screwed up but we can't help it so just give us another 4 more years of your votes???

Bush = Clinton??? HAHAHAHAHA

Please, dude, try not insult our intelligence to that extent.

Please excuse my candid take but either show me the honest politician with strong policy I can support or just shut up about this topic.

Hillary is a known commodity and those who can't man up and admit they were wrong are going to waste all their energy painting her with that "slick willie" brush while ignoring the fact their party gave us 8 years of total crap leadership and instead of looking at the positive effect of 8 years of Clinton leadership are going to spread vitriol at the only candidate with a legitimate record of political success at more than a state level.

Are you talking to somone in your imagination? You're certainly not talking to me, because, as I've noticed, in every response you base your retort on assumptions.

You're not candid, you're contrived in how you decide to respond.

Re-read what I wrote and respond to it, not to the sterotypical characterization you wish it to be.

And yes, Bush = Clinton. Two sides of the same coin.

[jterrell]

"man up"? if total crap, then how prepared is the democratic party if they couldn't beat "total crap"? twice?

didn't you say ron paul was honest? he wants nothing more than the constitution to the strictest level - weak policy?

jt - i can see you'll defend the clintons to your grave and if that's your choice, fine. but calling out those who hunger for more by saying "man up and admit you're wrong" - pretty arrogant.

the only thing i've ever seen such statements do is divide.

i'm tired of the great divide.

BTW, Ice, those neo-cons swore they were the honest and moral ones... how did that work out?

Stop trying to vote based on what we can't know and vote on what we do know and things will get better. Anyone claiming to be morally superior is full of a caseload of poop.

You keep suggesting I think Bush lying = bad but Hillary lying = good.

But
1. If Bush's lying was his worst problem he'd be in the Presidential Hall of Fame.
2. Clinton did not get us involved in a decade long war/occupation based on a lie.

Let's recap:
1 tells a lie to send us to war
2 tells us a lie because she wants to poll better

do you really question which is more serious???

'

[ConcordCowboy]

planting questions i don't care about.

telling me what i want to hear cause the truth she thinks i can't handle, i care.

like i said, if we accept it as a crappy game we can't win, we never will. if we can find ways for 1 turd to be better than the other, we'll be stuck with some form of turd.

it's embarassing.

Well you keep harping back to her lying about the planted questions...so it seems you do care about that.

What is she telling you that you want to hear that she feels you can't handle the truth about?

[ConcordCowboy]

And yes, Bush = Clinton. Two sides of the same coin.

Good Lord...come on man.

I didn't vote for Clinton either time...so I'm no Clinton lover...but come on.

Bush will go down as one of the Worst Presidents EVER.

Clinton will not.

[jterrell]

Are you talking to somone in your imagination? You're certainly not talking to me, because, as I've noticed, in every response you base your retort on assumptions.

You're not candid, you're contrived in how you decide to respond.

Re-read what I wrote and respond to it, not to the sterotypical characterization you wish it to be.

And yes, Bush = Clinton. Two sides of the same coin.

HAHAHAHA how funny.
You cry about my statements then mark them true in one breath.

Shrub Bush and Bill were both southern white governors who were President; there ends the similarities.
Hillary and George W both went to Ivy League schools, though one actually had the grades and test scores to get in.

I am directing my comments to you specifically but yes they apply broadly.

You think that 8 years of George W. Bush was just a little bump in the road and we should trust those Republican voters and the Republican Party with the Presidency for four more years. And you could not possibly have less credibility as either a poster on a political forum or as a political party.

Republicans who stood up and stated that this guy wasn't fiscally responsible and was endangering us with his policies deserve praise and an ear. Those whose feelings are hurt because they have been told Bush would suck and he has been proven too; well I am not really in an apologetic mood for those folks.

[vta]

It's at this point that the topic has to be diverged, because as is typical, blind assumptions take over and mischaracterizations are brought forward to maintain a percieved advantage and reason is lost.

Because you did not read what was written; because in the face of a view that does not reflect your own, you pull the typical tact of: if I don't agree with it, it must be (blank). Fill in the blank based on the situation at hand - in this case Neo-Con/Republican.

Great examples:

In another words Repubs want to say yea we screwed up but we can't help it so just give us another 4 more years of your votes???

What is this in response to? Really. Go back to what you resonded to with that and find it's validity.

You think that 8 years of George W. Bush was just a little bump in the road and we should trust those Republican voters and the Republican Party with the Presidency for four more years.

What is this in response to? Do the same as above.

You'll go so far as to tell me what I think, which in reality is purely what you need to think. Self deception is the most common form of lying...

[BrAinPaiNt]

which is my point in the end. we've heard nothing but what a liar bush is for how many years now? yet when hillary doesit, it's ok. my question then is why? because you like the person? cause you think they'll help you just the same? so much stock was put into bush lying it was a broken record. now, why if such an action is so reprehensible, are we willing to forgive hillary for the same action?


I think he has already said his answer, just not the answer you care to hear.

[iceberg]

BTW, Ice, those neo-cons swore they were the honest and moral ones... how did that work out?

Stop trying to vote based on what we can't know and vote on what we do know and things will get better. Anyone claiming to be morally superior is full of a caseload of poop.

You keep suggesting I think Bush lying = bad but Hillary lying = good.

But
1. If Bush's lying was his worst problem he'd be in the Presidential Hall of Fame.
2. Clinton did not get us involved in a decade long war/occupation based on a lie.

Let's recap:
1 tells a lie to send us to war
2 tells us a lie because she wants to poll better

do you really question which is more serious???

'

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

that was december of 1998 2 years before bush could start his lie parade.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/)
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/)


so where did clinton dig up this obviously "incorrect" info and how come clinton can lay down these claims and it's ok but when bush does it, it's a lie - because bush took action?

i'd be glad to talk issues, jt. but issues themselves, not hillary and/or clinton defense. right now we're still talking to get the views/stances/expectations of the other. i'm just afraid if i want to talk about say a wall on our border, you'll tell me what clinton says.

if i don't like clintons health care plan, you'll tell me why i'm wrong with a goold old ROFL or HAhAHAHAhAhA or both. i can't talk issues when someone else is busy talking *down* to me. that too, jt, makes it tough to meet in the middle.

hopefully we'll find that ground soon enough.

[jterrell]

http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.

that was december of 1998 2 years before bush could start his lie parade.

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004.shtml
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/)
"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source (http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/)


so where did clinton dig up this obviously "incorrect" info and how come clinton can lay down these claims and it's ok but when bush does it, it's a lie - because bush took action?

i'd be glad to talk issues, jt. but issues themselves, not hillary and/or clinton defense. right now we're still talking to get the views/stances/expectations of the other. i'm just afraid if i want to talk about say a wall on our border, you'll tell me what clinton says.

if i don't like clintons health care plan, you'll tell me why i'm wrong with a goold old ROFL or HAhAHAHAhAhA or both. i can't talk issues when someone else is busy talking *down* to me. that too, jt, makes it tough to meet in the middle.

hopefully we'll find that ground soon enough.

How often do you want to post the same stuff so you cna get the same responses????

I am seriously beginning to wonder if you have an issue that affects memory.

I posted above that in 1998 we knew Saddam has WMD and he was forced to dismantle/destroy them with UN inspectors handling the case.

I even stated it was an example of how much more effective Bill Clinton was at handling the issue.

In another day or so when you post those same quotes I'll respond the same.

[iceberg]

How often do you want to post the same stuff so you cna get the same responses????

I am seriously beginning to wonder if you have an issue that affects memory.

I posted above that in 1998 we knew Saddam has WMD and he was forced to dismantle/destroy them with UN inspectors handling the case.

I even stated it was an example of how much more effective Bill Clinton was at handling the issue.

In another day or so when you post those same quotes I'll respond the same.

oh i'm sure to you clintons can do no wrong.

but first:

saddam never had wmd? right? isn't this the knock on bush for faulty intel and a lie? NO WMD!!! BUSH LIED!!!

clinton, 1998
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

he never had 'em, bush lied, so what pray tell did clinton attack?

or:
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

was he gonna just ask saddam to resign? he talks a lot but in the end did nothing. i'm not saying bush got it right, that's painfully obvious otherwise. but that doesn't make all talk and no action good.

but since you're down to insult fest, i guess i'll stop pushing for clarity when it's just not gonna let itself be found. please continue to laugh at me, my questions, ideas and so on cause i'm just so impared.

[jterrell]

It's at this point that the topic has to be diverged, because as is typical, blind assumptions take over and mischaracterizations are brought forward to maintain a percieved advantage and reason is lost.

Because you did not read what was written; because in the face of a view that does not reflect your own, you pull the typical tact of: if I don't agree with it, it must be (blank). Fill in the blank based on the situation at hand - in this case Neo-Con/Republican.

Great examples:

In another words Repubs want to say yea we screwed up but we can't help it so just give us another 4 more years of your votes???

What is this in response to? Really. Go back to what you resonded to with that and find it's validity.

You think that 8 years of George W. Bush was just a little bump in the road and we should trust those Republican voters and the Republican Party with the Presidency for four more years.

What is this in response to? Do the same as above.

You'll go so far as to tell me what I think, which in reality is purely what you need to think. Self deception is the most common form of lying...

ROFL.

This is comical.
VTA, you are a hot mess.

You post here, I understand your views. It isn't exactly a shock to anyone you are Republican and voted for the Repub candidate.
Nothing I have stated does not apply to you based on your posts here; and your ducking the assertions is not exactly convincing.

My response is to you in general not a single post.
You are silly if you think I am not going to recognize the people who defended Bush and the neo-con political war machine.

The neo-cons are kings of all liars and as is always the case they can't shut up yelling about how someone else has lied. More of the same tired nonsense about how they are morally and ethically superior because if they say it enough maybe they will believe it and maybe the sheep can be convinced.

[iceberg]

and it's just as painfully obvious everyone has to fit in a category or label for you. i don't think you can post a day w/o calling someone a neo-con.

or laugh at their ideas in a ROFL YOU FOOL manner that's so very condesending.

[jterrell]

oh i'm sure to you clintons can do no wrong.

but first:

saddam never had wmd? right? isn't this the knock on bush for faulty intel and a lie? NO WMD!!! BUSH LIED!!!

clinton, 1998
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.

he never had 'em, bush lied, so what pray tell did clinton attack?

or:
"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.

was he gonna just ask saddam to resign? he talks a lot but in the end did nothing. i'm not saying bush got it right, that's painfully obvious otherwise. but that doesn't make all talk and no action good.

but since you're down to insult fest, i guess i'll stop pushing for clarity when it's just not gonna let itself be found. please continue to laugh at me, my questions, ideas and so on cause i'm just so impared.

Ice, bro, you are not aware of this situation so I am going to try to state this in a manner that is not insulting.

1. We all KNOW Saddam had WMD at one point in the late 1990's. We KNOW!
2. We all know he was ordered to destroy them.
3. We all KNOW the UN felt he had complied with that wish and would not sanction Bush in 2001/2002 to declare War on Saddam.
4. We all know Saddam had his various weapon factories bombed by Clinton.
5. We all know Bill did not invade and occupy Iraq.
6. We all KNOW Iraq has not attacked us.

[iceberg]

so bush got elected just before the expiration date and saddam found God just to make him look bad.

got it.

[jterrell]

and it's just as painfully obvious everyone has to fit in a category or label for you. i don't think you can post a day w/o calling someone a neo-con.

or laugh at their ideas in a ROFL YOU FOOL manner that's so very condesending.

that's a fair enough complaint.
i am just not sure how to respond to the same question 20 times in unique and friendly manners.

i am also not sure how to discuss politics with the board equivalent of a mod on extremeskins and not note their history means taking their political stances with a huge grain of salt. especially if those folks are not willing to move past those takes but instead want to keep bringing them up as if my defending hillary is some kind of vindication for them backing a complete and total moron in the race to be president of the united states of america twice.

I have been called a Hillary apologist a few times in this thread. i haven't broke down and cried yet. Labels are a part of what goes with message board posting. Further I am logical enough to understand I resemble the remark.

[jterrell]

so bush got elected just before the expiration date and saddam found God just to make him look bad.

got it.

Bush had the same means at his disposal Clinton had with the UN. Bush chose to disregard the UN and go off like DeNiro in Taxi Driver.

Neither Sr. Bush nor Clinton took it to the point of invading and occupying Iraq. Both men were smarter than that because they knew the end results were untenable.

Do you not understand by now that IS THE complaint for the past 3 years???

As Americans we backed Bush and his intelligence community over the rest of the world. We even brought in other countries to assist us all because of bad or cooked intel? Can you see why we are at an all-time low in international opinion?

You are so concerned about honestly and trust but can you not see Bush lied to the world as a whole and asked them to declare war based on info his administration filtered and twisted. They have a jihad on us but he have a Bush-had on them.

[iceberg]

that's a fair enough complaint.
i am just not sure how to respond to the same question 20 times in unique and friendly manners.

i am also not sure how to discuss politics with the board equivalent of a mod on extremeskins and not note their history means taking their political stances with a huge grain of salt. especially if those folks are not willing to move past those takes but instead want to keep bringing them up as if my defending hillary is some kind of vindication for them backing a complete and total moron in the race to be president of the united states of america twice.

I have been called a Hillary apologist a few times in this thread. i haven't broke down and cried yet. Labels are a part of what goes with message board posting. Further I am logical enough to understand I resemble the remark.

by me? i'm trying *not* to go there, ya know? if i missed answers on recent questions apologies. i either did not recognize it as such or missed it.

[iceberg]

Bush had the same means at his disposal Clinton had with the UN. Bush chose to disregard the UN and go off like DeNiro in Taxi Driver.

Neither Sr. Bush nor Clinton took it to the point of invading and occupying Iraq. Both men were smarter than that because they knew the end results were untenable.

Do you not understand by now that IS THE complaint for the past 3 years???

As Americans we backed Bush and his intelligence community over the rest of the world. We even brought in other countries to assist us all because of bad or cooked intel? Can you see why we are at an all-time low in international opinion?

You are so concerned about honestly and trust but can you not see Bush lied to the world as a whole and asked them to declare war based on info his administration filtered and twisted. They have a jihad on us but he have a Bush-had on them.

in 1998 saddam had WMD but went through the UN like a good president.
in 2003, 5 years later, the UN is still saying WE MEAN IT - LET US INSPECT...but the WMD were gone now.

if bush lied about WMD what was clinton, either with or without the UN help, bombing again and why?

so we're down to a 5 year gap now where the WMD vanished and all intel that clinton had was now false.

am i following correctly?

[Rack Bauer]

Still trying to figure out how "Marrying Bill" is an accomplishment...

[vta]

You post here, I understand your views.

I think you've provided enough evidence to the contrary.

It isn't exactly a shock to anyone you are Republican and voted for the Repub candidate.

Eh, no I didn't. Try another tact.

Nothing I have stated does not apply to you based on your posts here; and your ducking the assertions is not exactly convincing.

I don't have to duck anything or be dishonest with anyone. You don't really think your opinion holds that much weight, that I'd have to lie, do you?

My response is to you in general not a single post. You are silly if you think I am not going to recognize the people who defended Bush and the neo-con political war machine.

By all means find such examples in my posts...

The neo-cons are kings of all liars and as is always the case they can't shut up yelling about how someone else has lied. More of the same tired nonsense about how they are morally and ethically superior because if they say it enough maybe they will believe it and maybe the sheep can be convinced.

They, they, they... That's all well and good, but if you're going to try to prop your assertions up on what you've experienced with 'Neo-Cons' and not by what the person you're discussing with has offered, you're always going to be handicapped. You're blind assertions go very well with your blind devotion.

You couldn't answer the very question of what besides 'stance' (which equals nothing more than an opinion) does Hilary offer, so we've degenerated into this.:rolleyes:

[trickblue]

I think jterrell is having a hard time coming to grips as being an apologist...

For the past eight years he has vilified Bushies, all the while not realizing he has become one... only for Hillary...

When you believe in something, you defend it til the end. It's easy when you sit on the outside looking in, as with Bush. You launch grenades, you vilify, criticize, make fun of... etc...

Then the day comes along that you are on the defensive. All of the sudden you are defending the idiot for once. You reach, you try, you justify. The very things you criticize the current administration of are the very things your candidate espouses. You see lots of "yeah, buts"...

When the things you would criticize Bush for are the very things you give Hillary a pass on, you are apologist...

Joseph is a great guy, and HIGHLY intelligent, but he doesn't see his own hypocrisies...

He will be mad at me, but it won't change the fact that I respect him just about more than anyone else around these parts...

[jterrell]

in 1998 saddam had WMD but went through the UN like a good president.
in 2003, 5 years later, the UN is still saying WE MEAN IT - LET US INSPECT...but the WMD were gone now.

if bush lied about WMD what was clinton, either with or without the UN help, bombing again and why?

so we're down to a 5 year gap now where the WMD vanished and all intel that clinton had was now false.

am i following correctly?

You are following but at your own pace and skipping a lot of key info.

The UN did get in to inspect Iraq and did declare Saddam to be complying with weapon dismantling.

He resisted later by saying he didn't want UN inspectors coming in forever and was charged with impeding their ability to do their jobs.

The initial resolutions required Iraq to abandon any efforts to take over or militarily assault Kuwait. A requirement they have met. The broader weapons language was only a smaller subsequent resolution.

We bombed Iraq military and weapons bases in 1998 because of the lack of Iraqi cooperations with weapons inspectors. BUT we never went further than that until 2003 when Bush was authorized by Congress to declare war based on cooked intel.

Powell laid out the argument for attack and was rebuked by the UN and would have been by anyone with a mere smattering of logic. The logic was that Saddam was not in full compliance which was true but also that Iraq was a threat to the US which was not true and had never occurred at any point in history.

If Bush had merely bombed Iraq bases as Bush/Clinton had done before we would have never been in position to police the country and the UN would have continued to push for compliance with all U.N. regulations.

[jterrell]

vta,

You do realize there is a search feature here right?

Its not real complicated to search by user vta and see all the posts defending the war and bashing any Democrat you mention.

This board is a recent occurrence and the takes here are much more moderate than all the yahoo and heehaw celebrations of Bush and Neo-Conservatism that was present on politicalzone.org and before when this board was here.

But you can keep pretending to be unbiased and all even if it is a big lie.

Who did you vote for?
No need to dog up posts when the facts are what the facts are.
Either deny you are a registered Republican who voted twice for Bush or shut up crying about being called on it.

You do not have to tell me for me to know.

[AtlCB]

I didn't care whether or not he had sex with Monica, but assumed he had.
I was more concerned with the decisions he was making actually running the country. I didn't think Congress had any right to ask him the question at all. It wasn't illegal and should have never been discussed at all. Monica was not a spy and there was no evidence of anything beyond a simple sexual relation between an intern and Bill.

I also do not care JFK kept a string of mistresses or that many other presidents had flings. I care about how they handled the business of running the country.Congress didn't ask him the question. The question was asked by another lawyer as part of a lawsuit for sexual harrassment. My problem with the entire situation wasn't that he had an affair or lied about it; my problem was that he sexually harrassed someone and perjured himself to try and get out of it. Clinton knew better - he was a lawyer!

The whole incident is now in the past, and Clinton was disbarred in Arkansas for perjuring himself.

I find it ironic how the Dems were cheering the punishment of the person who was sentenced for perjury for lying during the Alberto Gonzales witch hunt.

[jterrell]

I think jterrell is having a hard time coming to grips as being an apologist...

For the past eight years he has vilified Bushies, all the while not realizing he has become one... only for Hillary...

When you believe in something, you defend it til the end. It's easy when you sit on the outside looking in, as with Bush. You launch grenades, you vilify, criticize, make fun of... etc...

Then the day comes along that you are on the defensive. All of the sudden you are defending the idiot for once. You reach, you try, you justify. The very things you criticize the current administration of are the very things your candidate espouses. You see lots of "yeah, buts"...

When the things you would criticize Bush for are the very things you give Hillary a pass on, you are apologist...

Joseph is a great guy, and HIGHLY intelligent, but he doesn't see his own hypocrisies...

He will be mad at me, but it won't change the fact that I respect him just about more than anyone else around these parts...

I am not mad at you at all Trick.
I think you have a horrid political sense but that is all.
I have never disliked you by any means.

You have a great sense of humor and good taste in football teams plus are form Texas. You can't be all bad. :)

I am not having a hard time being an apologist at all. I clearly am one. I was an apologist for Bill as well arguing with dull empty-headed repubs mostly:)

As the dust settles my guy was CLEARLY better than your guy....
That really is all it boils down to.

8 more years of Bush light or 8 more year of Clinton?
Give me Clinton every day of the week and twice on budget days.

Would I trust another Repub or a Democrat who was in office for the best administration of the past 20 years?

People are free in this country to vote and say what they like.
But they will see the results if they are wrong and we have 7 years of strong evidence Bush sucks to high heavens.

We also have 7 years worth of evidence what the neo-cons told us about Bill and his administration was wrong. So all that apologizing I did for Bill was in fact simply telling the truth and pointing to pertinent information.

I will continue to point to the fact Hillary is experienced and has a moderate political leaning. I will continue to point to the fact she is intelligent and articulate. I will continue to point to the fact the rest of the world views her admirably which enables diplomacy.

[vta]

vta,

You do realize there is a search feature here right?

Its not real complicated to search by user vta and see all the posts defending the war and bashing any Democrat you mention.

Then by all means do it. Quit talking and do it and find that you're talking out of your rump... Or just keep avoiding having to answer with facts and stay in the comfort zone of conjecture.

This board is a recent occurrence and the takes here are much more moderate than all the yahoo and heehaw celebrations of Bush and Neo-Conservatism that was present on politicalzone.org and before when this board was here.

What does this have to do with anything?

But you can keep pretending to be unbiased and all even if it is a big lie.

I see that such reasoning is an alien concept to you, therefore your response is to react out of ignorance.

Who did you vote for?

No one. I knew the outcome already, so I didn't bother.

No need to dog up posts when the facts are what the facts are.

No need to prove an assertion and find you've been making an *** of yourself, when you can safely hide within the self-deception of simply thinking you're right.

Either deny you are a registered Republican who voted twice for Bush or shut up crying about being called on it.

Sorry Joseph, such demands can only be met with a giant raspberry. Surely, someone as intelligent as you're touted to be, can quiet an opposing viewpoint with something better than empty demands? Like with facts?

You do not have to tell me for me to know.

You're an extremist; you rail against Neo-Con's, using the very phrase as if it were a weapon, much like your counterparts use words like Liberal, in the same fashion. You are the Yang to their Yin, made of the same mold, only choosing a different side and you pretend that choice gives you some kind of superiority. You are what's is wrong with this country.

Perhaps this is the point where you should Roll On The Floor Laughing.

[ConcordCowboy]

8 more years of Bush light or 8 more year of Clinton?

Give me Clinton every day of the week and twice on budget days.


Totally agree with you here.

[jterrell]

Then by all means do it. Quit talking and do it and find that you're talking out of your rump... Or just keep avoiding having to answer with facts and stay in the comfort zone of conjecture.



What does this have to do with anything?



I see that such reasoning is an alien concept to you, therefore your response is to react out of ignorance.



No one. I knew the outcome already, so I didn't bother.



No need to prove an assertion and find you've been making an *** of yourself, when you can safely hide within the self-deception of simply thinking you're right.



Sorry Joseph, such demands can only be met with a giant raspberry. Surely, someone as intelligent as you're touted to be, can quiet an opposing viewpoint with something better than empty demands? Like with facts?



You're an extremist; you rail against Neo-Con's, using the very phrase as if it were a weapon, much like your counterparts use words like Liberal, in the same fashion. You are the Yang to their Yin, made of the same mold, only choosing a different side and you pretend that choice gives you some kind of superiority. You are what's is wrong with this country.

Perhaps this is the point where you should Roll On The Floor Laughing.
yup you are right ROFL.

so you wasted all that typing to say yea I am a Repub who voted for Bush but am not admitting it....

good job dude, no really.
i am sure you have won over the masses and now you are the poster boy for unbiased takes....

:rolleyes:

[jterrell]

vta,

did I mention ...

:lmao2: :lmao:

I love Repubs who voted for Bush twice saying I am am what's wrong. hahahahaha!!!!

Yea me and Howard Dean are all to blame because you Repubs can't use a brain and vote for the right folks.

I am so liberal that I would have voted for McCain....

[vta]

"Reading is fundamental"... :cool:

Maybe you should try this (http://www.funbrain.com/brain/ReadingBrain/ReadingBrain.html). Start small and work your way up.

Good luck Joey!

[iceberg]

You are following but at your own pace and skipping a lot of key info.

The UN did get in to inspect Iraq and did declare Saddam to be complying with weapon dismantling.

He resisted later by saying he didn't want UN inspectors coming in forever and was charged with impeding their ability to do their jobs.

The initial resolutions required Iraq to abandon any efforts to take over or militarily assault Kuwait. A requirement they have met. The broader weapons language was only a smaller subsequent resolution.

We bombed Iraq military and weapons bases in 1998 because of the lack of Iraqi cooperations with weapons inspectors. BUT we never went further than that until 2003 when Bush was authorized by Congress to declare war based on cooked intel.

Powell laid out the argument for attack and was rebuked by the UN and would have been by anyone with a mere smattering of logic. The logic was that Saddam was not in full compliance which was true but also that Iraq was a threat to the US which was not true and had never occurred at any point in history.

If Bush had merely bombed Iraq bases as Bush/Clinton had done before we would have never been in position to police the country and the UN would have continued to push for compliance with all U.N. regulations.

then if big bill took care of everything and bush had faulty intel, why did hillary vote for the war?

on one hand i'm curious but on the other, she can do no wrong to you so i don't expect an objective answer. you want to 'get past' things - i'd like to 'get past' the clinton pep rally.

[jterrell]

then if big bill took care of everything and bush had faulty intel, why did hillary vote for the war?

on one hand i'm curious but on the other, she can do no wrong to you so i don't expect an objective answer. you want to 'get past' things - i'd like to 'get past' the clinton pep rally.

ice this thread should be dead but alas...

Hillary voted for the war for the same reason America backed it at the time: we were lied to. Should she have known better? Possibly. It is hard to know exactly what all was being fed to the Senate Committee's she is on. I do know every member of that Senate committee voted for the war and she has been telling us the intelligence provided was cooked and one-sided in favor of attacking Iraq. There have been memo's suggesting this is in fact quite true. The CIA director is no longer there.

Did you not think the war was a good idea at the time?

Hillary has certainly made mistakes and even admitted them.

But I will gladly spend 9 years cheerleading if it means 8 more years of Clinton administration at the level Bill conducted and a sharp departure from the Bush admin's disastrous terms.

Repubs are supposed to be the foreign policy president and then Dems come in and fix things at home. Sadly Bush destroyed us in the area he was elected to build.

[iceberg]

sorry - you said clinton went in and ensured everything was kopasetic.

how did that intel get lost? before the vote, wouldn't bill go "hillary - he doesn't have any - don't do it"?

like i said, hillary could run a school bus full of handicapped kids off the road on purpose and you'd find a way to excuse it.

[BrAinPaiNt]

sorry - you said clinton went in and ensured everything was kopasetic.

how did that intel get lost? before the vote, wouldn't bill go "hillary - he doesn't have any - don't do it"?

like i said, hillary could run a school bus full of handicapped kids off the road on purpose and you'd find a way to excuse it.

Let me ask you this question.

If you were on a jury and the prosecutor read a police report that said Citizen X was found to have a bag of cocaine in his luggage when they searched it at the airport...would you not say, well he must be guilty. The report said the cops found the guy with the cocaine in his luggage so he is guilty.

However after the trial happened, after citizen X was found guilty and was sent to prison...You find out that a person came forward that worked with the airlines and had been the one that actually put the cocaine in Citizen X's luggage without Citizen X's knowledge.

Would you still keep on saying... I voted guilty on the Jury with all the EVIDENCE THAT WAS GIVEN ME, so therefore I will not change my mind on the issue.

Or would you say...Hey I did not have that evidence and now that I do I will change my mind?

Just curious.

Because contrary to what some want to believe all of the people that voted for the war did not have ALL OF THE INTEL that the white house admin had.

[ConcordCowboy]

Let me ask you this question.

If you were on a jury and the prosecutor read a police report that said Citizen X was found to have a bag of cocaine in his luggage when they searched it at the airport...would you not say, well he must be guilty. The report said the cops found the guy with the cocaine in his luggage so he is guilty.

However after the trial happened, after citizen X was found guilty and was sent to prison...You find out that a person came forward that worked with the airlines and had been the one that actually put the cocaine in Citizen X's luggage without Citizen X's knowledge.

Would you still keep on saying... I voted guilty on the Jury with all the EVIDENCE THAT WAS GIVEN ME, so therefore I will not change my mind on the issue.

Or would you say...Hey I did not have that evidence and now that I do I will change my mind?

Just curious.

Because contrary to what some want to believe all of the people that voted for the war did not have ALL OF THE INTEL that the white house admin had.

Not only didn't they have all the Intel that the White House had...the Intel that they got was skewed for going to War.

[iceberg]

Let me ask you this question.

If you were on a jury and the prosecutor read a police report that said Citizen X was found to have a bag of cocaine in his luggage when they searched it at the airport...would you not say, well he must be guilty. The report said the cops found the guy with the cocaine in his luggage so he is guilty.

However after the trial happened, after citizen X was found guilty and was sent to prison...You find out that a person came forward that worked with the airlines and had been the one that actually put the cocaine in Citizen X's luggage without Citizen X's knowledge.

Would you still keep on saying... I voted guilty on the Jury with all the EVIDENCE THAT WAS GIVEN ME, so therefore I will not change my mind on the issue.

Or would you say...Hey I did not have that evidence and now that I do I will change my mind?

Just curious.

Because contrary to what some want to believe all of the people that voted for the war did not have ALL OF THE INTEL that the white house admin had.

agreed. my point is that what happened to clintons intel in jt's scenario when he went in and got it all figured out?

this isn't a logical debate, this is trying to figure out JT. two different worlds so far.

[BrAinPaiNt]

agreed. my point is that what happened to clintons intel in jt's scenario when he went in and got it all figured out?

this isn't a logical debate, this is trying to figure out JT. two different worlds so far.


Spock bows out.:p: ;)

[jterrell]

agreed. my point is that what happened to clintons intel in jt's scenario when he went in and got it all figured out?

this isn't a logical debate, this is trying to figure out JT. two different worlds so far.

Ice, you have completely lost me here.

I think it is clear that Hillary did not have good info.

She thought she did as she thought the info was non-partisan intelligence data she could trust. She had worked with the intelligence community before during Bill's admin and trusted them. We have found out that intelligence community was told to quash all data contrary to their being WMD and to play up any evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and any talk of WMD.

What was Hillary supposed to do? Call the intelligence community as a whole a liar? Sit opposed to military action against someone who may the intelligence community indicates may well be planning to attack us?

I am not sure how you expected her to vote or do you even care?

Do you or do you not agree with what she did given the facts she had to work with?

I have clearly stated I do.
Kucinich and Paul disagree and may have a point but are you asserting that or does it even matter to you?

I didn't know I was that hard to figure out, lol.
I live The Colony you could probably figure me out a lot easier over beers watching a Cowboys game than in a debate over which politician sucks worst.

[jterrell]

Spock bows out.:p: ;)

spock, shhhhh, more like Mork:)

hehehe.

[iceberg]

Ice, you have completely lost me here.

I think it is clear that Hillary did not have good info.

She thought she did as she thought the info was non-partisan intelligence data she could trust. She had worked with the intelligence community before during Bill's admin and trusted them. We have found out that intelligence community was told to quash all data contrary to their being WMD and to play up any evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda and any talk of WMD.

What was Hillary supposed to do? Call the intelligence community as a whole a liar? Sit opposed to military action against someone who may the intelligence community indicates may well be planning to attack us?

I am not sure how you expected her to vote or do you even care?

Do you or do you not agree with what she did given the facts she had to work with?

I have clearly stated I do.
Kucinich and Paul disagree and may have a point but are you asserting that or does it even matter to you?

I didn't know I was that hard to figure out, lol.
I live The Colony you could probably figure me out a lot easier over beers watching a Cowboys game than in a debate over which politician sucks worst.

heh - perhaps. it's just clear to me now regardless of what hillary does, it's "good" to you. or at least excusable.

[jterrell]

heh - perhaps. it's just clear to me now regardless of what hillary does, it's "good" to you. or at least excusable.

thats clear to everyone.
not sure it merits a bunch of threads....

i have never claimed to be un-biased.
i do try to offer logical arguments for my takes however even while admitting i am biased.

for instance:
bush sucks because:
he can't add(as seen in budget)
he is not very bright(as seen in his every speech and facial expression, not to mention academic report)
was a friend of enron, exxon and worldcom ceo's.

hillary is good because:
she is smart
she was part of successful administration that balanced the budget, saw economic boom, reformed welfare, saw crime decline, saw us operate as the world's sole super power.

[iceberg]

like i said - hillary is excused across the board. i just find that dangerous.