Join The Debate!

Polls

Mrs BUBBA would spin her way thru it. If by chance things turned around in Iraq, she would be the first to jump on the bandwagon. She hopes nobody will bring up her comments about the capture of Sadam, her other comments when things were going good.

So a Senator who's running for President

So a Senator who's running for President claims she doesn't know what Bills she's signing? That should be a real confidence builder...

What can you expect?

The only substance this lying Communist Chameleon has is pure corruption! Hitlery always leaves herself a way out of any statement.

Bush's folly

As to President Bush and the ongoing war in Iraq, the biggest mistake he made there was the same one he made here in the U.S. He failed to secure the borders.

Why should Ms. Clinton...

... stand up and say, "I was wrong. I am sorry."

We all wish she would, just like we wish all the other congressmen running for president would. Just like we wish our president would!

When has George Bush ever taken the stand and openly admitted he was dead wrong? He had ampl opprotunity to do so during the last campaign, when things were already spiralling out of control in Iraq, but he preferred to "stay the course".

Obviously, voters lapped it up then. Conservatives especially streamed to the polls to vote for the guy who would not admit he was wrong. Why should Ms. Clinton or any other presidential hopeful expect anything else of the electorate now?

Hillary and Bush wrong on Iraq!

Hillary Clinton and President Bush both want our military to stay in Iraq long term. Yet experts tell us our long term military presence drives the recruitment of terrorism . Professor Pape has run the longest study on terrorism and has testified before Congress about this issue.

Why not recognize the separate areas of Iraq and pull back U.S. troops? We could keep the troops in an off-shore position to help or use strategic air strikes if needed. We could then bring in an international Muslim force to work in Iraq instead of non-Muslims.

America could then focus on eliminating Middle East oil dependency and lower the tension of terrorism against America. I do not see how our military presence in the area helps us long term.

Wikipedia-Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.Robert Pape’s (an expert on terrorism) wrote in Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) controverts many widely held beliefs about suicide terrorism. Based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2005 (315 attacks as part of 18 campaigns), he concludes that there is “little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions… . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland” (p. 4). “The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism,” he argues; it is “an extreme strategy for national liberation” (pp. 79-80).

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/hillary-and-bush-wrong-on-iraq

Lies ? When ? Now ? Yes !

Isn't it almost funny but really sad now that all those on the left that "Voted"to go to war twice in Iraq were mislead by Bush ?Yet "they admit"they saw the same info from the CIA-LESS that the president saw .
{Have } we forgotten{I haven't}the countless speeches by Bubba Clinton why he was bombing in Africa, Iraq in the first place ? Hillary , Gore , Kennedy, Durban plus many other Liberals made speeches on the floor of the house and senate plus Clinton on national TV three times .War is about who makes the least mistakes .All those that wish Saddam had stayed in power raise your hands .Then tell the world yourfore human rights .Yeah right
Funny that same crowd of Liberals was us to go to Africa for Human rights > Duh !

RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT...

...IN 1799!!!!!

Really?

"A little free campaign advice to Senator Clinton. Americans prefer presidents who tell the truth and take responsibility."

That is not at all clear to me. The word at the time was that Bill C. would have been re-elected handily had he been able to run again.

Bush's Problem...

Was that he listened to all those Democrats, going back to Bill Clinton and Madelyn Albright in 1998 who kept saying that Sadaam Hussein had WMDs and was on the verge of going nuclear, and had to be dealt with.

See what happens when you listen to Dims?

Konop Ron Paul HAHAHAHAHA

I will never vote for that person because you are supporting him.

It's kind of like your Rosie on the view. If you support something, that's good enough for me! I will support the opposition.

Wade-a-go Rosie Konop

Ron whatever his name is has about as much chance of winning the Presidency as my pet lab, sara. Sara may have a better chance of winning. She is cuter and sits and fetches better then any other dog I have had.

Mrs Bill

has been rewriting her personal history and 're-inveventing' herself from day one. Remember, this is the woman who even rewrote the history of Sir Edmund Hillary to fit her warped view of her own life.

Do not expect her to ever tell the truth either, as a disciple of Saul Alinski she lives by the rule that "the ends justify the means."
Alinski, a true radical and 60s leftist wrote the definative primer for the far left-wing;
Rules for Radicals (1971) and another earlier book along the same lines Reveille for Radicals (1945).

So you see, Mrs Clinton cannot afford to speak the truth, it would end her quest for total (abuse of) power.

PS
One of the best books I have read regarding the Jr. Senator from NY is - "Hell to Pay: The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton" - by the late Barbara Olson (a frequent critic of the Clinton administration).

If you really want to know what kind of person Mrs Clinton is, check that book out at your local library.

Can't blame it on bad intel

The fact is, both Hillary and Bush should have known what a disaster this war would be, because that is precisely what the Intelligence Community told them. The fact that they didn't listen should disqualify both of them from leadership positions.

And by the way, anyone who thinks they know about how the pre-war intelligence was used by politicians needs to read the following by Paul Pillar who was the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia before the war:


Take it away Paul:

What comes to mind when someone mentions intelligence and the Iraq War? Why, of course, the intelligence estimate on Iraqi unconventional weapons programs that was excoriated in a 500-page report that the Senate Intelligence Committee issued with much fanfare in July 2004, was further torn apart in another 500-page report by a presidentially appointed commission, and has been the object of scorn and vilification ever since.

But the weapons estimate was one of only three classified, community-coordinated assessments about Iraq that the intelligence community produced in the months prior to the war. Don’t feel bad if you missed the other two, which addressed the principal challenges that Iraq likely would present during the first several years after Saddam’s removal, as well as likely repercussions in the surrounding region. After being kept under wraps (except for a few leaks) for over four years, the Senate committee quietly released redacted versions of those assessments on its website May 25, as Americans were beginning their Memorial Day holiday weekend.

I initiated those latter two assessments and supervised their drafting and coordination. My responsibilities at the time as the National Intelligence Officer for the Near East and South Asia concerned analysis on political, economic and social issues in the region. A duty of any intelligence officer is not only to respond to policymakers’ requests but also to anticipate their future needs. With the administration’s determination to go to war having become painfully clear during 2002, I undertook these assessments to help policymakers, and those charged with executing their policies, make sense of what they would be getting into after Saddam was gone. Following a common practice of the National Intelligence Council with many self-initiated projects, we got a policy office—in this case the State Department’s Policy Planning Staff—to provide cover of sorts by agreeing to be listed as the customer of record.

The tremendous notoriety the estimate on weapons programs achieved has been all out of proportion to any role it played, or should have played, in the decision to launch the war. The administration never requested it (Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee did), its public line about Iraqi weapons programs was well-established before it was written, and as the White House later admitted, the president (and the then national security adviser) did not even read it—nor did most members of Congress. Opposition to the war among many at home and abroad who shared the misperceptions about Iraqi weapons programs demonstrated that those perceptions did not, contrary to the administration’s enormous selling effort, imply that a war was necessary.

In contrast, the other two assessments spoke directly to the instability, conflict, and black hole for blood and treasure that over the past four years we have come to know as Iraq. The assessments described the main contours of the mess that was to be, including Iraq’s unpromising and undemocratic political culture, the sharp conflicts and prospect for violence among Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups, the Marshall Plan-scale of effort needed for economic reconstruction, the major refugee problem, the hostility that would be directed at any occupying force that did not provide adequate security and public services, and the exploitation of the conflict by Al-Qaeda and other terrorists.

The Senate committee report released two weeks ago revealed sharp partisan divisions, so sharp that the only evaluative comments are in separate statements by majority and minority members. The focus of the political clash was on what heed the Bush Administration should have taken of the intelligence community’s judgments. The two sides even disagreed over including in the report a list of who received the assessments.

The story of these pre-war assessments has other implications that are at least important, however, including ones for current debate over Iraq policy. The assessments support the proposition that the expedition in Iraq always was a fool’s errand rather than a good idea spoiled by poor execution, implying that the continued search for a winning strategy is likely to be fruitless. Some support for the poor execution hypothesis can be found in the assessments, such as the observation that Iraq’s regular army could make an important contribution in providing security (thus implicitly questioning in advance the wisdom of ever disbanding the army). But the analysts had no reason to assume poor execution, and their prognosis was dark nonetheless. Moreover, amid the stultifying policy environment that prevailed when the assessments were prepared—in which it was evident that the administration was going to war and that analysis supporting that decision was welcome and contrary analysis was not—it is all the more remarkable that the analysts would produce such a gloomy view.

A second observation—bearing in mind how long it took for these assessments to be made public—is that evaluation of the intelligence community’s performance tends to be heavily politicized, with much criticism having more to do with agendas and interests of the critics than with anything the intelligence community does. The two assessments, which contained very little sensitive reporting, should have been far easier to declassify than the Top Secret estimate on weapons. Yet it has taken almost three more years, and a change in party control in Congress, to release them or any report based on them. (But give the Senate committee credit for even belatedly doing something that neither its House counterpart nor the executive branch did.)

Republican interest in protecting the administration, and in so doing shifting blame for the Iraq disaster to the intelligence community, clearly is a large part of this. But the scapegoating has a bipartisan element as well. For all members of Congress who supported the war, the assessments about postwar consequences are an inconvenient reminder of how they bought into the administration’s false equation of a presumed weapons program with the need to invade, and how, in trying to protect themselves against charges of being soft on national security, they failed to consider all of the factors that should have influenced their votes.

Spinning the intelligence community’s performance through selective attention has consequences that go far beyond institutional pride or the historical record. For example, the enactment in late 2004 of an intelligence reorganization of doubtful effectiveness depended in large part on the public perception—incomplete and incorrect—that intelligence on Iraq had been all wrong.

A final observation concerns how the intelligence community really did perform on Iraq. It offered judgments on the issues that turned out to be most important in the war (as distinct from ones the administration had used to sell the war), even though those judgments conspicuously contradicted the administration’s rosy vision for Iraq. And for the most part, those judgments were correct.

Paul R. Pillar is on the faculty of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown University.

Phylo out.

Lies and more lies

We know Bill was a liar. We know Hillary is a liar. Do you think their daughter should be in therapy knowing her parents are grifters?

Clinton definition of leadership

The following is how a Clinton "leads".

Step 1. Wait for a consensus to form on the issue.

Step 2. Wait for widely publicized polling results to confirm the consensus.

Step 3. Join the consensus.

Step 4. Wait until the results of the decision made by the consensus are in.

Step 5. Wait until the results are confirmed by another poll.

Step 6. If the consensus was right, claim credit for leading it. If it was wrong, blame the highest-ranking Republican who supported it.

This is the method Mr. Clinton used throughout his Presidency, most notably on balancing the budget and Welfare Reform.

Since she has no ability to succeed on her own, Mrs. Clinton, "the world's smartest woman", must follow the procedure outlined by her husband and mentor.

Please note that nothing in the entire 6-step procedure has anything to do with respecting the truth.

kassandra...

is a new participant and a real dumb a$$. College must be out for the summer.

Konop

Our presence in Iraq does NOT drive recruitment for terrorists.. The terrorists were trained from kindergarden on up.
It does give them a battleground to migrate to! Their religion so glorifies their death when they think they are fighting a Jihad that their training causes their migration. That migration will follow to wherever there are infidels.

Would you rather fight them in Iraq or somewhere else??
Where else would you prefer fighting them?? USA?

Hillary's Genealogy

.....Hillary ....(ideologically) ...can be traced back in a straight line through Josef Stalin and Karl Marx ...

.....Hillary would have her grandmother roasted over an open pit if it would grant her the Presidency .....COLOSSUS

kassandra

Why don't you just post the bumper sticker "Bush lied, People died". Or I know "When Clinton lied, no one died". Except we now know people did die. Just post your favorite bumper stickers and save all of us the time of reading your dribble. The left not reconciling themselves with the facts of life, and they do it with most issues, is going to come back around and bite them. It always does.

Phylo

Quit posting on intel since you obviously do not know how the intel community works. All views are presented then intel is analyzed as a whole. So yes that view was presented, but HC may not have known that because since she didn't read the intelligence assessments. I guess she couldn't be bothered and after the fact is too late. The Dems voted for it because it was the right thing to do. They then realized it was going to cost them forever and they would never shed their dove reputation. So as usual they politicized it. It worked so well for Nam. People like you fall for it because you lack education and critical thinking skills, not to mention, plain ol' common sense.

no longer silent

Shrillary is masculine? I was thinking bossy, overbearing, controlling, power hungry, marxist witch with a 'b'. Don't forget elistist snob.

Truthteller

The inspectors had never been allowed to complete their inspections in 10 prior years. What makes you think they would have been given any other chances?
Dipolmacy? You don't call 6 months or more of dealing with the UN and Iraq plus the twelve years prior of dealing with the UN and Saddam not pursuing diplomacy? At what point in your opinion would it have been prudent to go to war? Saddam was already in violation of 17 UN resolutions with the UN doing nothing. They were irrelevant then and they're irrelevant now.
The whole Bush lied thing has passed. Get a new soapbox.

A tree is known by its own fruit…

‘In one sense of consistency, we expect liberals to be allergic to personal responsibility and to seek every opportunity to be the victim. Here, Senator Clinton does not let us down.’—Star Parker


This is an interesting article in light of the recent articles regarding the Democrat presidential candidates’ views on faith expressed in the public forum. As far as we could tell no distinction was made between saving faith and spurious faith. The New Testament deals with both. Christ taught the way to distinguish the two, ‘Ye shall know them by their fruits.’ [Matthew 7:20]

Saving faith always results in fruit, some more than others according to the measure of grace. [Re: Parable of the Sower] Fruit comes forth from the renewed heart that now loves the Law; a Law that was once despised as that which condemned us before God.

Truth telling, integrity, faithfulness, patience, kindness, charity and respect for authority are some of the fruits that would be expected from a person with saving faith; not perfection, but a new principle of forsaking what God condemns and pursuing what He says is good.

Words of deceit would be one characteristic of the man of spurious faith. He might talk of faith, but there is no active principle that flows from the heart.

[Reference: Religious Affections by Jonathan Edwards]

RetMSgt and Union Dude

Your points about the prior failures of the weapons inspectors and diplomacy and about who had what pre-war intelligence completely miss the point: you do not dispute that, to get the authority he wanted, Bush told senators, including Sen. Clinton, that he would first pursue diplomacy and allow the inspectors to complete their work before taking military action and that he did neither. Its just that simple. And just that tragic.

kassandrasduplexatmoms,

Um, speaking as one of the "folks", I purposely never read The Washington Post.
Do you really believe what you are saying about Hillary being "fooled" by the Administration? Are you kidding-
They ALL believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
Why don't you look up some of Bill Clinton's statements regarding such.

For the record, I really believe that Hillary Clinton is a dangerous sociopath.

SSGTRET

Nice try face it you do not have any facts just spin!

I Could Never Vote For Hillary...

...due to her utter cowardice. In the run up the to the Iraq debacle anyone with half a brain could see that we the public on both sides of the Atlantic were being fed utter bullsh*t to try and garner support (if I recall correctly Colin Powell said as much). In Blighty they had to resort to stealing an old student dissertation off the internet.
I frankly felt insulted at the time that the powers that be thought we were all that stupid. Now that all those who opposed the war, both on the left and the right, have been proven completely correct one can only dispair that the people who were able to do something to prevent it were too craven to do so. I appreciate the media in the US were prepared to go along with the government line and the backlash those of the antiwar ilk had to endure was very unpleasant but she hasn't even got the decency to admit she was wrong.

truth teller

I believe that in 1998 thar Bill Clinton and every one of these dems wanted regime change,and after 19 resolutions broken by S.H.Bush took the dems at their word.That seems to me that the dems lied to Bush.

union dude

There is no doubt that everyone wanted regime change. But we don't have the right to militarily displace every foreign government we don't like. Your argument that there is no difference between President Clinton's desire for regime change and President Bush's misrepresentation about how he would use the authorization for military action he was seeking from Congress is like arguing that someone who wishes he had a million dollars is no different than someone who murders ten people while robbing a bank.

Hilllary & Iraq

Hillary was like most other patriotic Americans. She was sold a scenario re Iraq that was false. Various factors played a role. One was the understandable anxiety following 9-11 that caused many to think unclearly and believe untruths (for example, that Saddam was tied into 9-11).

More important, a powerful cabal got the ear of our naive president and tricked him. This cabal included war-hungry neocons (many of them Israel-firsters), power-hungry exiles, and money-hungry elements of the military-industrial complex. (Remember Ike's warning!)

So, we invaded! Now look at the mess. The killed and maimed Americans. Additional thousands of Iraqis casualties and 2-3 million refugees. Distraction from our real enemy, bin Laden, a man who despises Saddam as an 'infidel'. US goes deeper and deeper and deeper into debt for our children and grandchildren to pay off. Loss of influence in the world while increasing that of Iran. Endangering friends in the Middle East. Many other negatives, including: how are we going to get out of this quadmire?

I give gold stars to neither party. The only GOPer I can vote for at the moment would be Hagel. Ron Paul may be right on the war but somewhat too kooky for me.

The GOP left me when it was taken over by blithering idiots, chickenhawks, and Israel-firsters. It looks like I may have to vote a third party in protest.

Roy

Did you read what the NEI report said? All the lawmakers saw what the CIA wrote or did not read the report.

Tenet: CIA warned of ‘anarchy’ in Iraq

This analysis was widely known before the war by anyone who ever read a book about the region. The National Security Adviser under Bush 1 pointed this out before the war in an article called Don’t Attack Saddam! How could any lawmaker vote for the Iraq war without knowing this? And when they made the mistake, why did the President and lawmakers turn a blind eye to the Biden partition plan (originally recommended by the CIA? The CIA was right and the White House and lawmakers were wrong!

USATODAY-SAN FRANCISCO — The CIA warned the Bush White House seven months before the 2003 Iraq invasion that the U.S. could face a thicket of bad consequences, starting with “anarchy and the territorial breakup” of the country, former CIA Director George Tenet writes in a new book.

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/tenet-cia-warned-of-anarchy-in-iraq

Hillary and Bush wrong on Iraq!
Hillary Clinton and President Bush both want our military to stay in Iraq long term. Yet experts tell us our long term military presence drives the recruitment of terrorism . Professor Pape has run the longest study on terrorism and has testified before Congress about this issue.

Why not recognize the separate areas of Iraq and pull back U.S. troops? We could keep the troops in an off-shore position to help or use strategic air strikes if needed. We could then bring in an international Muslim force to work in Iraq instead of non-Muslims.

America could then focus on eliminating Middle East oil dependency and lower the tension of terrorism against America. I do not see how our military presence in the area helps us long term.

Wikipedia-Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.Robert Pape’s (an expert on terrorism) wrote in Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005) controverts many widely held beliefs about suicide terrorism. Based on an analysis of every known case of suicide terrorism from 1980 to 2005 (315 attacks as part of 18 campaigns), he concludes that there is “little connection between suicide terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, or any one of the world’s religions… . Rather, what nearly all suicide terrorist attacks have in common is a specific secular and strategic goal: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from territory that the terrorists consider to be their homeland” (p. 4). “The taproot of suicide terrorism is nationalism,” he argues; it is “an extreme strategy for national liberation” (pp. 79-80).

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/hillary-and-bush-wrong-on-iraq

Mrs BUBBA

I still remember her testimony," I can't recall, I don't remember". She IS a typical Lawer. She does't have a clue what honesty is. People can make up dreams and spin about her lies. She is not BUBBA, not the same speaker, or likeability. Poles still show she losses against GOP frontrunners.

Lynne

you raising an interesting question. If I were able to vote, in which state would I be able to I wonder? I lived in Boston so maybe there I suppose.
I must say the next presidential election should be interesting. You in the states should consider yourselves lucky that your politics can still enflame passion on both sides. It's become incredibly boring in the UK as we have no opposition of any worth as the Conservative Party ar in disarray, even though I have always voted Labour I wish there was some efficient opposition to them

vespanat

I haven't been following your comments, so I don't know if you plan on voting Dem or Rep. However, if you are voting in Mass., don't bother. Their electoral votes ALWAYS go to the Democrat. It has become a non-contested state. If you want to have a chance to matter, move to OH, PA, Iowa, FL, somewhere like that.

Lynne

If she ever had a soul, I think it shrank after being around Billy long enough.

She needs to be in a free-form debate where she can't recite answers and sound almost human. It would be nice to see a debate not moderated by a liberal, but we both know that's not happening.

Scary

They all scare me. People like George Bush, Hillary Clinton. Ted Kennedy, etc. They scare me because of their absolute willingness to lie, deceive, bribe (read spend on special interests), vote and do whatever it takes to achieve whatever is on their own special interest. The moral bankruptcy and elitism is stunning.

Queen Hilly not worried.

Queen Hilly is not worried about her fan club reading the book. Most can not read. The Dem.'s have done such a good job of dumbing down public schools and brain washing their Liberal spill through out teachers and schools, that her base would not understand the book, much less believe any of it. From a politicians standpoint, there is something to the old saying, "Keep them poor and stupid".

RR