Didn’t you start running the pink tutu picture of Kerry, Edwards, Liebermann, and Gephardt
because they backed Bush on the Iraq War? You know, before we found no WMD?
Given your recent back-pedaling on Hillary, can I count on you to stop running that picture?

Back pedaling?
Moi?

To answer your first question, no.
They were pink tutus before 9-11 and before the war.
To answer your third question, only if the senate dems come to work.

Plus, I notice you have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.

  Comments?

> "IF your choices are Hillary or the BFEE stooge - how you gonna vote?"

After struggling with this dilemma, I still can't answer except to say:
"Maybe I will vote 3rd party for the 1st time in my life"

Expect a "Thank you" from Karl Rove.

So, I got a question for you:

IF President "we had the same intelligence" Hillary decides to "send more troops"
to die for a lie like she's been advocating......will you still support her?

Every military man not dependent on Bush for a job says more troops is the right move.

Our current choices are:
Surrender Iraq and the $200M a day Bush is stealing to Zarqawi, I don't like that
Stay the disasterous course, I don't like that
Send more troops and actually secure the country, that's better than anything on the list
 

hahahaha. I hate Hillary, but you are right about one thing-she'll do anything to win.

That's what we need, right?
The opposite of Kerry?
 

BTW, you, too, have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.

  Comments?

Bart asks what we would have done in Hillary's shoes if the CIA had briefed us that Saddam did indeed pose some threat....
Well, I remember those days and my words at the time pretty well.    I remember I was skeptical and not just because I
disliked George Dubya Boosh. I remember reading all sorts of things at the time -- there was a flash movie from England
with Boosh and Blair as King Arthur and 'Tiny?' (Terry Gilliam) in 'The Holy Grail' by Monty Python, which absolutely
shot down the Al tubes theory. Months and months before any such resolution.

Between the CIA and Mointy Python, who you gonna trust with America's safety?
I know, you'll say Monty Python, but can you be glib with 150M lives at stake?
 

There was Scott Ritter. There was Hans Blix.  There was plenty of reason to be skeptical and moreover, oughtn't it be
in the nature of senators to exercise such, shall I say, Enlightenment era scientific, skeptical reasoning routinely, especially
to the claims of persons in the highest positions of power and more especially if these same folk are in opposition Parties,
and even yet more especially as it has to do with the decision whether or not to go to war? A war which very conveniently
seems to have been on the agenda for a long time? Even Paul O'Neill and Time magazine gave evidence of that.
Is it not possible that all of DC in fact *knew* of Smirk's hardon for Saddam?

Of course there was reason to be skeptical, but the CIA said, correct me if I'm wrong, that Saddam could launch
inside 45 minutes.  So what would you do - appoint Bob Dole to chair a committee to study the threat?
Have them get back to you in 2006?

Don't you have to admit the CIA was in a position to know more than Ritter and Blix?
Sure, after the fact it's easy to go back and say, "They should've known."

Besides, Ritter and Blix were saddled with proving a negative - not easy to do.
 

You, too, have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.

  Comments?

what we would have done in Hillary's shoes?

Well, I hope that *I* would have put my constituents' political interests
ahead of my own political interests.

(Of course, *I* knew then what *I* know now)
 

But wouldn't you put your constituents' lives ahead of both of those?
In this case, the CIA was "the expert."

"The expert" says, "Saddam's about to launch."
How do you ignore that?

We're not talking about a football game or a political race.
We're talking about 150M lives - how can one be so cavalier about gambling with 150M lives?
 

You, too, have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.

  Comments?

If she doesn't have the moral courage to stand up for what's right, then the right's criticisms
of her as being unprincipled and power hungry are, in fact, correct.

Aren't we assuming "facts" not in evidence?
You're saying it takes moral courage to say, "I don't care if Saddam can kill 150M Americans?"

Saying Hillary should have known there were no WMDs is like saying college football
should have known that OJ was a murderer and how dare they give him the Heisman Trophy.

Where is the pre-war guarantee that Bush was lying?
We all suspected he was, but this gambling with 150M lives is a bad thing.

Another thing everyone is forgetting:
No senator voted for the war.
The senate voted to give Bush the authority to go to war IF the facts said we had to.
Giving a cop a gun is NOT authorization for him to use it.

Bush misused that authority for personal gain, and if we can win an election,
we might see these murdering bastards brought to justice but first we have to win.
 

You, too, have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.

  Comments?

[If she had voted against the war] She'd sure look good right now.
And she wouldn't have all that blood on her hands.

If she's so tough, why couldn't she take the heat to do "the right thing"?
F Hillary and all the other enablers.
 

I believe this gang is going in circles.
You take a rumor (that Saddam gad no WMDs) and elevate it to a fact,
and then demand an explanation from Hillary why she ignored the "fact."

It wasn't a fact in 2002 - why can't people understand that?
 

and you, too, have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.

  Comments?

"She'd sure look good right now."

Really? She'd look good after years of "Hillary loves Saddam and hates our troops and our values
and blah blah blah" day after day after every f-ing day? Not that she doesn't get that anyway
(and from both sides now, to some extent) but on a matter like this it would sink in deeper.
More minds would be made up about her than already were.

And I reject the notion that she or any other Dem who voted for the war has blood on thier hands.
If there had been any possibility that it could have gone the other way they would have voted the other way.
That sort of vote switching goes on all the time. No smart pol throws thier career away for a lost cause.
This ain't 'Mr. Smith Goes To Washington'.

Azul does have a point about her continued support, but I'd want to see the exact language she's used
recently before I really even made my mind up over that. We've lost this war, which should be plain to
anyone who's paying attention. Now we have to get out in a way that will cause the least overall damage.
When the time comes to do that I believe virtually all the Dems who initially supported the war will know
what to do.  But until Bush is gone they probably won't be able to do it alone.
 

A wave of common sense washes over this discussion - cool.

  Comments?

Forget the "doing what's right" stuff.
Forget the "blood on the hands" stuff.
Forget the "died for a lie" stuff.

Now that 56% (I think that's the number)
of Americans think the invasion Iraq was a mistake,
how does Hillary make political hay out of her position?
 

Could I borrow your time machine?
I'd like to go back to 1995 and buy 3,000 shares of Yahoo for $2.

If I had you live, on the witness stand, I could make you admit that nobody but Bush had proof
that Saddam was harmless in April of 2002.  Ritter and Blix has their theories and suspicions,
but again, this isn't a game we could afford to lose and then say, "Oops, my bad," after we
lost Florida, Georgia, Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, Maryland, Philly, New York, Boston etc.

The crime here is Bush having the CIA lie to the senators.
You're accusing Hillary of not gambling with 150M lives.
To me, that sounds like a plus in a presidential campaign.
 

and again, you have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.
 

  Comments?

My point has to do with Bart's clear double standard....

As far as the Iraq War goes, Hillary has been no different from Joe Liebermann.
Dick Gephardt has actually taken a more critical position on the Iraq War than Hillary has,
and yet he gives Hillary a pass while blasting Gephardt, Kerry, and Liebermann.

What's the deal?

 
The deal is that Lieberman isn't Hillary, and it's crazy to suggest they are twins.
Did Ken Starr spend years trying to humiliate Lieberman?
Did Ken Starr send men to rifle thru Lieberman's underwear drawer?
Did the NRA spend tens of millions attacking Lieberman?
Did you see a Lieberman photo with a Hitler mustache in a thousand guns shops?

The difference is, Lieberman could lead the charge to stop this war,
but he likes the war and he loves Bush.
Hillary is going to come out against this war, but if she launches too early,
she will be "Hillary Fonda," on the Bush-owned media for three long-ass years
and they'll turn her into Dean and Kucinich and you're blind if you can'r see that.

To say "Bart has a double standard" means Lieberman and Hillary are twins that share
the exact same history and the exact same level of hatred from the right and that's crazy.

Bush invited Lieberman to join his cabinet.
Think he'd invite Hillary?

Use your head.
Do we want power back or not?
 

...and like the others, you have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.
I believe everyone on this page failed to mention a better candidate because they know
there is no better candidate than Hillary.

I want a Clinton/Clark ticket.
They are both fighters who won't take any shit from the Nazi bastards.
We'll see a replay of 1992 and 1996 - or, we could go with other lesser
or unknown candidates and see a replay of 2000 and 2004.

Not me.
I want to win this time.

If you disagree - name a better team than Clinton/Clark.

I really don't know where all the Hillary worship is coming from.

Why does 'wanting to win' equal "worship?"
Have I been going on and on and on about Hillary's greatness?
She's got more experience in the White House than any other Democrat.
She can raise ten times more money than any Democrat.
Do those facts equal "worship?"
 

Her Senate career is anything but remarkable.
Name me just ONE major legislative accomplishment she's performed. !!??!!

She's a freshman senator with an approval rating in the high 60's.
She's going to be president, unless her stab-in-the-back party prevents that.
 

She blew the one-payer health care opportunity in the first Clinton administration by dawdling
and lawyering to death something that could have passed in a modest version causing a mojor loss
of her husband's political capital and opening his administration up to Noot's Contract ON America.

That's one way to look at it - it's certainly the way Rush looks at it.
The way I remember it, when the GOP said, "These Socialists are trying to turn America commie,"
the Democrats agreed with the sons of bitches and piled on and that's what cost them the House in 1994.
 

Democrats have been down ever since, and she's NOT the one to unify and bring them back to prominence.
Like Gore, she may find her voice occasionally, but overall, she's not effective at anything I've seen.

By a hueueueuge margin, polls show she's the Number One candidate in the Democratic Party.
Nobody on this page can even say who Number Two is - isn't that an accomplishment?
 

If you WANT the BFEE to continue to win,
put up a lightning-rod, controversial, universally hated woman as your candidate and give the red-meat
opposition time to organize and develop its smear machine, which they will undoubtedly do.

Dude, look at 2000 and 2004. We sent up nice, wimpy, meek, bland, cowering, tentative candidates
who didn't know how to fight and didn't have the will to fight - and what did that get us?

We could send up a third nice, wimpy, meek, bland, cowering, tentative candidate in 2008.
Why do you think the BFEE bastards will play nice for another nice, wimpy, meek, bland, cowering, tentative candidate?

We can't afford to repeat the mistakes of 2000 and 2004.
Bill Clinton is the only Democrat since FRD to win two terms and you want to run from that?
Bill is going to be Hillary's campaign manager, named or not, he'll be the mastermind.

I'm tired of losing with non-Clinton candidates and, like the others on this page,
you have failed to mention a better candidate than Hillary.
 

Look, you don't have to love Hillary.
Just don't pull a Nader and fight for the other team - please?
 

  Comments?

 back to  bartcop.com