Is it desperation?

BULLY BOY PRESS &  CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

WAR MACHINE CANDIDATE CRANKY CLINTON IS DO FOR A MAKE OVER.

AND HELPING HER OUT?

THE VERY STYLISH MAD MADDIE ALBRIGHT.

CRANKY TOLD US HER ONLY CONCERN WAS "THE HAIR.  I MEAN MAD MADDIE THINKS SHOWING LOTS OF SCALP IS SEXY BUT TO ME IT JUST LOOKS GROSS, TACKY AND OLD.  AND CRANKY CLINTON IS NEVER GROSS, TACKY AND OLD.  I ALSO REFUSE TO WEAR MU-MUS.  I TOLD HER, 'NO MU-MUS, MAD MADDIE! OR GRANDMA PANTIES!'  AND SHE TOLD ME THAT GRANNY PANTIES ARE ACTUALLY ROOMY AND LIBERATING."

THE MAKE OVER COMES AS CRANKY IS SAID TO BE LOSING FURTHER GROUND TO RIVAL BERNIE SANDERS.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The Iraq War never ends.


And those responsible for starting it may try to escape responsibility but it's not that easy.


Senator Bernie Sanders, in 2002, voted against the Iraq War.  He's running for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination and so is Hillary Clinton.

Today, Bernie Tweeted:

                    Liked 2,044 times

Bernie Sanders Verified account ‏@BernieSanders 23m23 minutes ago

Experience is important, but so is judgment. And back in 2002 one of us voted the right way on the Iraq War. The other didn't. #DemDebate

1,142 retweets 2,044 likes

The ridiculous -- always ridiculous -- Fred Kaplan (SLATE) tries to rewrite history:

In response, Clinton acknowledged, as she has on previous occasions, that she’d made a mistake. But she also offered an explanation for her vote, something she has rarely done in the past. President Bush, she told the audience, had made a “very explicit appeal” that “getting this vote would be a strong piece of leverage in order to finish the inspections.” In other words, a resolution to use force would prod Saddam Hussein into readmitting U.N. inspectors, so they could continue their mission of verifying whether or not he had destroyed his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons sites. In other words, Clinton was now claiming she voted the way she did in the interests of diplomacy; the problem was that Bush went back on his word—he invaded before giving the inspectors enough time.

Listening to her rationale Wednesday night, I didn’t know whether she was telling the truth. I had written many Slate columns about the Iraq debate and the ensuing war, but I couldn’t remember the details of then-Sen. Clinton’s position. Looking up those details now, I have come to a conclusion about the rationale she recited at the New Hampshire town hall: Hillary was telling the truth.

Poor Fred Kaplan, nothing sadder to see than an old and aging whore.

Reality on this was noted last week.  Last week.  By Stephen Zunes:

“Hillary Clinton’s vote wasn’t for war, but simply to pressure Saddam Hussein to allow UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq.”
At the time of vote, Saddam Hussein had already agreed in principle to a return of the weapons inspectors. His government was negotiating with the United Nations Monitoring and Verification Commission on the details, which were formally institutionalized a few weeks later. (Indeed, it would have been resolved earlier had the United States not repeatedly postponed a UN Security Council resolution in the hopes of inserting language that would have allowed Washington to unilaterally interpret the level of compliance.)
Furthermore, if then-Senator Clinton’s desire was simply to push Saddam into complying with the inspection process, she wouldn’t have voted against the substitute Levin amendment, which would have also granted President Bush authority to use force, but only if Iraq defied subsequent UN demands regarding the inspections process. Instead, Clinton voted for a Republican-sponsored resolution to give Bush the authority to invade Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing.

In fact, unfettered large-scale weapons inspections had been going on in Iraq for nearly four months at the time the Bush administration launched the March 2003 invasion. Despite the UN weapons inspectors having not found any evidence of WMDs or active WMD programs after months of searching, Clinton made clear that the United States should invade Iraq anyway. Indeed, she asserted that even though Saddam was in full compliance with the UN Security Council, he nevertheless needed to resign as president, leave the country, and allow U.S. troops to occupy the country. “The president gave Saddam Hussein one last chance to avoid war,” Clinton said in a statement, “and the world hopes that Saddam Hussein will finally hear this ultimatum, understand the severity of those words, and act accordingly.”
When Saddam refused to resign and the Bush administration launched the invasion, Clinton went on record calling for “unequivocal support” for Bush’s “firm leadership and decisive action” as “part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.” She insisted that Iraq was somehow still “in material breach of the relevant United Nations resolutions” and, despite the fact that weapons inspectors had produced evidence to the contrary, claimed the invasion was necessary to “neutralize Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.”



Someone needs to ask Fred Kaplan if it hurts to be so damn stupid?

If you're not getting how stupid he is, the Institute for Public Accuracy issued this press release today:


STEPHEN ZUNES, zunes at usfca.edu, @SZunes
Zunes is a professor of politics & coordinator of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of San Francisco. He recently wrote the piece “The Five Lamest Excuses for Hillary Clinton’s Vote to Invade Iraq.” Zunes is currently in Philadelphia and will be in New York City on Friday.
Zunes said today: “Hillary Clinton did not vote to authorize the Iraq war in order to bring UN inspectors back in, as she claimed in last night’s [CNN] “Town Hall” meeting. She voted against the Levin Amendment, which would have authorized the use of force if Iraq refused to fully cooperate with UN inspectors. Instead, she voted for the Republican-sponsored resolution which gave President Bush the authority to invade and occupy Iraq at the time and circumstances of his own choosing. Hans Blix did not support the latter resolution, as she also claimed. Nor did Sen. Clinton object when Bush launched the invasion anyway five months later despite Iraq having been fully cooperating with the returning inspectors during that period.”
Clinton stated in her address on her Iraq war authorization vote on the Senate floor on Oct. 10, 2002: “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. … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability 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.” See video.

Just last week, Hans Blix had an interview with Al Jazeera’s “UpFront” program in which he talked about the U.S. invasion altering the security landscape of the Mideast, see: “The former UN weapons inspector says ‘it is doubtful’ ISIL would exist if it were not for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.”


As for Hillary?  Take the shame, Hillary, take the shame.


John Wagner (WASHINGTON POST) reports on remarks Bernie made today:

“Sometimes it’s easy to apologize for a bad vote 15 or 20 years later when the tide has changed,” Sanders said at a rally here. “It is a lot harder to stand up … and cast the right vote. That’s what leadership is about, not having to apologize for standing up and fighting for what’s right.”


Tonight, Hillary and Bernie faced off in a debate.

As usual, after each break, Hillary looked better.

Let's be clear, she's overweight and she has jowls.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the reason she was late from the bathroom the first time.

She's having make up applied throughout the debate.

She can smear all the crap on her face she wants and she'll still be ugly.

Just like she can trot out every lie and distraction and she'll still be guilty of supporting the Iraq War.

By the time Iraq came up, Hillary looked like -- at best -- a painted clown.


RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"X-Files -- good and goofy"
"Maurice White"
"She is not a strong candidate"
"Her greed will be her downfall"
"Who won?"
"SHADES OF BLUE (Harley's daughter)"
"We can hope"
"Best TV news of the week"
"what glenn said"
"42 years ago today"
"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY'S FEELING THE LOVE!"
"She has a plan"

She has a plan

BULLY BOY PRESS &  CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

CRANKY CLINTON STEPPED IN IT AGAIN.

THE E-MAIL SCANDAL WILL NOT DIE.

AND IT COULD DERAIL HER CORONATION.

AND JEFF COHEN SEES A FUTURE FOR CRANKY AS A STAND UP COMIC.

THIS DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE'S NOT PARTICULARLY KNOWN FOR HAVING A SENSE OF HUMOR.

AND OTHERS SUGGEST SHE CONSIDER A CAREER IN THE SEX INDUSTRY -- OR ANYTHING BUT THE PRESIDENCY.

THIS ALL GOES TO THE FACT THAT SHE IS SO DEEPLY UNPOPULAR.

REACHED FOR COMMENT, CRANKY DISMISSED THE LOATHING AS SHE INSISTED, "ONCE I'M PRESIDENT, I WILL MAKE IT A LAW THAT EVERY AMERICAN HAS TO LOVE ME.  AND WORSHIP ME.  ALWAYS."



FROM THE TCI WIRE:



Jim Michaels (USA TODAY) reports, "Iraq said Tuesday it is building a wall and trench around Baghdad in an effort to secure the city from terror attacks."

As Aretha Franklin sings, "Here we go again, it's the same old song."


Doubt it?

From Edward Wong's September 16, 2006 "Iraqis Plan to Ring Baghdad With Trenches" (NEW YORK TIMES):



The Iraqi government plans to seal off Baghdad within weeks by ringing it with a series of trenches and setting up dozens of traffic checkpoints to control movement in and out of the violent city of seven million people, an Interior Ministry spokesman said Friday.
The effort is one of the most ambitious security projects this year, with cars expected to be funneled through 28 checkpoints along the main arteries snaking out from the capital. Smaller roads would be closed. The trenches would run across farmland or other open areas to prevent cars from evading checkpoints, said the ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Khalaf.
"We're going to build a trench around Baghdad so we can control the exits and entrances so people will be searched properly," he said in a telephone interview. "The idea is to get the cars to go through the 28 checkpoints that we set up."


Ten years later and it's time to trot out the same old thing and pretend it's a new idea.


Of the 'new' proposal, AP adds:

The interior ministry’s spokesman, police Brigadier General Saad Maan, told the Associated Press that work began this week on a 100km (65-mile) stretch of the wall and trench on the northern and northwestern approaches of the capital.
The wall will be three metres (10 feet) high and partially made up of concrete barriers already in use across much of the capital, he said. He declined to specify the measurements of the trench.


And BBC NEWS notes:

The barrier will also have a two-metre deep trench running alongside it, Al-Sumariyah news website reported. Surveillance cameras, explosives detection devices and towers will also be installed.
Many parts of the capital are surrounded by concrete barriers. Some of these walls will be taken out of the city's streets and re-installed as part of the new barrier, Mr al-Shammari said. 
The Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Saad Maan, said work began this week on a 65-mile stretch of the wall and trench around the capital, the Associated Press reported. The wall will be 10-feet high and partially made up of concrete barriers, he said."




Let's drop back to yesterday's snapshot for a moment:




In the age of Barack, we're all supposed to politely bite our tongues.
Barack's also a War Criminal.
At his most laughable, Gregory types, "The first step would entail convincing key regional players to pursue the requisite policies to achieve the designated goal. The Iraqi government would be an enthusiastic partner but would need to demonstrate its inclusiveness and ability to unite the country’s diverse ethnicities and religious sects."
I guess that's one way to put it.
Not accurate but who needs accuracy when, like Gregory, you're arguing for more war.

Seth J. Frantzman (NATIONAL INTEREST) notes:

 In addition to the abuses against non-Sunni minorities in Mosul by Islamic State, the Sunni residents who make up the city told local reporters and human rights organizations in 2014 that Iraqi security forces executed prisoners before withdrawing. Human Rights Watch relayed stories of more than a dozen men executed after being removed from the Counterterrorism and Organized Crime prison.
This sense of persecution at the hands of Nuri al-Maliki’s Shia-led government prompted many to support ISIS when it arrived.



And the abuses continue under Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi's rule.

1. carrollbogert ‏@carrollbogert Jan 31

   Deadly squeeze continues: Sunnis in #Iraq town attacked first by #ISIS, then by Shia militia https://www.hrw.org/news/2016/01/31/iraq-possible-war-crimes-shia-militia …

   

   68 retweets 33 likes

Saturday, Human Rights Watch noted:



Members of Shia militias, who the Iraqi government has included among its state forces, abducted and killed scores of Sunni residents in a central Iraq town and demolished Sunni homes, stores, and mosques following January 11, 2016 bombings claimed by the extremist group Islamic State, also known as ISIS. None of those responsible have been brought to justice.
Two consecutive bombings at a café in the town of Muqdadiya, in Diyala province, some 130 kilometers north of Baghdad, on January 11, killed at least 26 people, many of them Sunnis, according to a teacher who lives near the café. ISIS claimed the attacks, saying it had targeted local Shia militias, collectively known as Popular Mobilization Forces, which are formally under the command of the prime minister. Members of two of the dominant militias in Muqdadiya, the Badr Brigades and the League of Righteous forces, responded by attacking Sunnis as well as their homes and mosques, killing at least a dozen people and perhaps many more, according to local residents.

“Again civilians are paying the price for Iraq’s failure to rein in the out-of-control militias,” said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “Countries that support Iraqi security forces and the Popular Mobilization Forces should insist that Baghdad bring an end to this deadly abuse.” 



Can you grasp that?
If you can, grasp this:  It is illegal for the US government to support a regime or government that attacks its own people.  It is against domestic US law and it is against international law.
Barack's a War Criminal.
Maybe because he wants to be, maybe because he's lazy (and would rather just continue the same instead of transform it into something different), who knows why he is how he is?
But a War Crime is taking place and he is the War Criminal.






Concerned Reader e-mails, "There is no such law.  Even if there were, you are holding President Obama to a higher standard than you would any other leader.  No White House would ever threaten Iraq with losing funding or support because their government forces were attacking the people.  No one."


No one?


Refer to the front page of the September 30, 2006 NEW YORK TIMES which featured Richard A. Oppel Jr.'s "U.S. May Cut Aid to Iraqi Police Cited in Abuses" which explained:


American officials have warned Iraqi leaders that they might have to curtail aid to the Interior Ministry police because of a United States law that prohibits the financing of foreign security forces that commit "gross violations of human rights" and are not brought to justice.


So I'm expecting too much from Barack when I expect him to follow the law?


And I'm also expecting too much from Barack when I expect him to at least do the bare minimum on human rights that Bully Boy Bush did?


That's really lowering the bar.



RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"
"Griffis misses the point again"
"Steve Grand 'Stay'"
"phoebe snow"
"Carly Simon 'Make Me Feel Something'"
"PJ Olsson and "Visine""
"Aretha's 'Sweet Bitter Love'"
"Driving All Night with Joss Stone"
"Donna Summer "There Will Always Be A You""
"Stevie Nicks 'Lady'"
"Ashford & Simpson's "High Rise""
"When We Two Parted"
"THIS JUST IN! WHAT'S THAT WHITE STAIN ON THE CLOTHING, HILLARY!"
"The secret relationships between Hillary and Donald revealed"

The secret relationships between Hillary and Donald revealed

BULLY BOY PRESS &  CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

CRANKY CLINTON HAS DECLARED "I DID NOT HAVE FRIENDSHIP RELATIONS WITH THAT MAN."

THAT MAN IN QUESTION IS DONALD TRUMP.

BUT PROBLEMS REMAIN.

FOR EXAMPLE, DONALD TRUMP IS SAID TO BE IN POSSESSION OF A STAINED BLACK T-SHIRT.

THE STICKY, WHITE CAKED ON STAINS ARE SAID TO BE THE REMAINS OF ICING -- OR 'FROSTING' -- FROM A CAN OF FROZEN CINNAMON BUNS THE TWO USED FOR A FRIENDSHIP BREAKFAST IN HAPPIER TIMES.

REPORTEDLY, TRUMP IS WILLING TO GO PUBLIC WITH THE T-SHIRT AND DETAILS OF THE BREAKFAST WHICH MIGHT HAVE TAKEN PLACE FOLLOWING A SLUMBER PARTY WHICH MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT HAVE INCLUDED A PILLOW FIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO.

FROM THE TCI WIRE:

The above is a failed tactic.

It is not a strategy.

Matthew Gregory disagrees.

Because he's an idiot.

He's not just any idiot at Georgetown, he's an idiot who shows where whoring leads.

In a column, he insists that US President Barack Obama has a strategy.

The fool can speak like this -- and it gets worse -- because whoring has allowed it.

In the early years of the never-ending Iraq War, students on campuses overwhelmingly opposed the Iraq War and demanded US troops leave Iraq.

After nearly eight years of Barack in the White House, and all the whoring that entails, there is a large -- not yet a majority -- number of students on college campuses today who are wallow in their stupidity and revel in their sense of entitlement.

Gregory, for example, dictates that Iraq will not split up.

Because he will impose on Iraq what he wants.

Let's be honest for a moment.

Iraq is a false creation by outside forces.

It has never hung together peacefully as a country.

In instances like this, at one point or another, the 'country' splits up.

That will likely take place with Iraq.

It might be next year, it might be 100 years from now.

If Iraq is stay together this year or any other?

It's going to be the decision of the Iraqi people.

We have repeatedly said here that only they can make the decision to split up or to stay together.

It cannot be imposed upon from the outside.

That's what self-will and democracy are all about.

But Matthew Gregory's been lied to for so long he doesn't grasp that.

He's Samantha Power all over again.

The Cruise Missile Left, as they've been called.

He's been failed by his own sense of entitlement and by the silence on the left since Barack was elected.

The refusal to demand an end to the Iraq War.

The refusal to call a liar a "liar."  And Barack is a liar.

"No boots on the ground."  That lie just gets bigger and bigger as he continues the Iraq War.

As Jason Ditz (ANTIWAR.COM) points out, "The US has repeatedly added boots on the ground to the war, and has some 3,700 ground troops in Iraq now, with Pentagon officials pushing a proposal to get that up to 4,500."


Barack's a liar.

During the age of Bully Boy Bush, a liar could be called a liar.

In the age of Barack, we're all supposed to politely bite our tongues.

Barack's also a War Criminal.

At his most laughable, Gregory types, "The first step would entail convincing key regional players to pursue the requisite policies to achieve the designated goal. The Iraqi government would be an enthusiastic partner but would need to demonstrate its inclusiveness and ability to unite the country’s diverse ethnicities and religious sects."

I guess that's one way to put it.

Not accurate but who needs accuracy when, like Gregory, you're arguing for more war.

RECOMMENDED:  "Iraq snapshot"

"Hillary's embarrassing loss"

"3 stories to read"

"NYT can't stop covering (gushing over) Hillary, bu..."

"Isaiah's THE WORLD TODAY JUST NUTS "Iowa Cozy""

"Hejira"

"Bill Scher weighs in"

"Put the cuffs on her"

"The Angry Wife"

"Time to appoint an independent prosecutor"

"What Cynthia McKinney said"

"brief"

"Hillary's 'win'"

"Thanks Barack!"

"Good golly"

"What does it say about her supporters?"

• Truest statement of the week
• Truest statement of the week II
• A note to our readers
• Editorial: She already gave you the Iraq War . . ....
• Media: Boycott what?
• Still Ms. Jackson 30 years later
• Is Valerie Plame a hypocrite
• Wording
• Uh, what is wrong with you?
• This edition's playlist
• Chairman Miller Statement on VA’s Inability to Dis...
• Chairman Miller Statement on Passing of VA Scandal...
• Highlights

"THIS JUST IN! CRANKY PREPARES FOR IOWA WIN!"

"Cranky's winning ways"

Cranky's winning ways

BULLY BOY PRESS &  CEDRIC'S BIG MIX -- THE KOOL AID TABLE

IN PREPARATION FOR THE BIG DAY IN IOWA THIS MONDAY, CRANKY CLINTON AND HER SUPPORTERS GATHERED IN A LARGE WOODED AREA JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT AND CREATED A SMALL CLEARING WHERE THEY BURNED AT THE STAKE A YOUNG VIRGIN TO ENSURE THAT CRANKY COULD CINCH THE NOMINATION THIS GO ROUND.


AFTERWARDS, CRANKY DEVOURED THE HEARTS OF 2 SMALL CHILDREN WHILE BUSYING HERSELF MAKING A VOO DOO DOLL OF BERNIE SANDERS.

"IT'S ALL PART OF THE PROCESS," CRANKY EXPLAINED.


FROM THE TCI WIRE:


All these years later, why are any US troops in Iraq?

There is no strategy, there is no logic, there is only continued death and destruction.


Which is why it does matter that Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War.

In 2002, she was a US Senator and she chose to vote for the Iraq War.

She chose to support it for years after.

It's only in 2008 that she can call it a 'mistake' publicly and then, this week, she insisted it was a 'mistake' only because Bully Boy Bush had prosecuted the war wrongly.


She's a liar.

As a US Senator, as a First Lady, as a Secretary of State, she's a liar.

But she thinks she deserves the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

Other are less likely to agree.  Take Angela Ross of Eugene, Oregon who writes a letter to the editor of THE REGISTER GUARD explaining:

Many of my women friends favor electing Hillary Clinton as our next president because she’s a woman, but I can’t base my vote on gender.

Because Clinton voted to support the Iraq war while in the U.S. Senate, I can’t in good conscience vote for her for president. If she’d argued against invading Iraq (as Sen. Bernie Sanders did), it would have shown leadership. Instead, she went along with the Bush-Cheney program.

[. . .]

I not only will vote for Sanders, I’ll also work hard participating in the democratic process his campaign engenders. He has 21st century ideas, whereas the ideas of Clinton and other establishment figures are from the 20th century.

 Miles Mogulescu (HUFFINGTON POST) argues:

Hillary may have foreign policy experience, but when push came to shove, she showed an extreme lack of judgment on the most important foreign policy decision in a generation. As in 2008 when she was running against Obama, it casts serious doubt on whether she's the Democrats' best presidential nominee.
Hillary voted for the Iraq War either out of rank political opportunism, because as a prospective presidential candidate, she feared that an anti-war vote would make her look weak. If so, she voted to send thousands to their deaths to further her political career.
Or she voted for the war out of a sincere belief in the benefits of American military intervention in the Middle East and the good that could come from regime change. If so, her beliefs showed an extreme lack of foreign policy judgment.
I'm not sure which is worse: voting for a needless and destructive war out of political opportunism or out of poor judgment. In either event, the Iraq War vote remains a big black mark on Hillary's claim that her foreign policy experience makes her the best choice to be Commander in Chief on Day 1.

Academy Award winning actress Susan Sarandon spoke out against the Iraq War.  While Hillary used support of the Iraq War to increase her own profile, Susan opposed the war and was verbally attacked for that.  She saw a charity event cancelled because she supported peace.

As Gregory Favre (POYNTER) explained March 28, 2003:

This week, the folks at United Way of Tampa Bay, in their infinite lack of wisdom, canceled an event because the actor Susan Sarandon was to be the speaker. This decision was made the day after she flashed the peace sign during the Academy Awards telecast.
How dare she have an opinion, much less express it.
So the $75 a plate dinner was sacrificed. (In the interest of full disclosure, Sarandon's fee was being paid by the St. Petersburg Times, which is owned by The Poynter Institute, my employer. And my boss, our dean, Karen Dunlap, was scheduled to interview her as part of the program.)
It had nothing to do with Sarandon's views, a United Way spokesperson said. It's just that her presence would have been divisive.
But isn't this kind of heavy-handed response to dissent happening all over this country? Just listen to the violence of the language aimed at those who may raise questions. Are we back in the '50s and '60s of the last century?


And it didn't end there.  Roger Catlin (LOS ANGELES TIMES) reported the following month:

Last week, she and her partner, Tim Robbins, were told by Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey, a former assistant press secretary to President Ronald Reagan, that he was canceling a 15th anniversary celebration of their film "Bull Durham." Petroskey said the couple's antiwar stance "ultimately could put our troops in even more danger." Earlier, Sarandon's appearance at a United Way event in Florida was canceled.



Hillary didn't just speak out for the war, she voted for it.  Despite the fact that she was supposedly representing the state of New York which gave her no mandate to support the Iraq War.

She voted for in direct opposition of the will of the citizens she represented.

So she attacked democracy and logic to embrace illegal war.


In an attempt to bury the issue before her planned run for the 2016 Democratic Party's presidential nomination, Hillary 'addressed' the issue in her ghost-written, poor selling book entitled HARD CHOICES.  Lesley Clark (MCCLATCHY NEWS) noted in 2014:

Democrats such as Clinton believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and posed a threat, a belief they said was fed by their own research beyond the word of the Bush White House, all of which later proved to be wrong.
Clinton said in the book that she’d voted to authorize war “after weighing the evidence and seeking as many opinions as I could inside and outside our government, Democrats and Republicans alike.”


But as Stephen Zunes (FPIF) pointed out earlier this week:

“Her vote was simply a mistake.”
While few Clinton supporters are still willing to argue her support for the war was a good thing, many try to minimize its significance by referring to it as simply a “mistake.” But while it may have been a terrible decision, it was neither an accident nor an aberration from Clinton’s generally hawkish worldview.
It would have been a “mistake” if Hillary Clinton had pushed the “aye” button when she meant to push the “nay” button. In fact, her decision — by her own admission — was quite conscious.
The October 2002 war resolution on Iraq wasn’t like the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin resolution authorizing military force in Vietnam, which was quickly passed as an emergency request by President Lyndon Johnson when there was no time for reflection and debate. By contrast, at the time of the Iraq War authorization, there had been months of public debate on the matter. Clinton had plenty of time to investigate the administration’s claims that Iraq was a threat, as well as to consider the likely consequences of a U.S. invasion.
Also unlike the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, which was disingenuously presented as an authorization to retaliate for an alleged attack on U.S. ships, members of Congress recognized that the Iraq resolution authorized a full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation and a subsequent military occupation. Clinton had met with scores of constituents, arms control analysts, and Middle East scholars who informed her that the war was unnecessary, illegal, and would likely end in disaster.
But she decided to support going to war anyway. She even rejected the advice of fellow Democratic senator Bob Graham that she read the full National Intelligence Estimate, which would have further challenged some of the Bush administration’s claims justifying the war.

It was not, therefore, simply a “mistake,” or a momentary lapse of judgment. Indeed, in her own words, she cast her vote “with conviction.”



She made a decision and it wasn't based on the will of the citizens, it wasn't based on the law, it wasn't based on facts.  She made a decision that started the Iraq War and all the destruction that followed -- all the destruction that continues.



RECOMMENDED: "Iraq snapshot"
"Chairman Miller Statement on VA’s Inability to Dis..."
"Chairman Miller Statement on Passing of VA Scandal..."
"Hillary, what difference, at this point, does she ..."
"When Hypocrite Met Hypocrite . . ."
"Will Iowa deliver us from Hillary?"
"Things are not good"
"hillary is an anchor around our necks"
"Again on embarrassing Chomsky"
"Ralph finds his spine"
"The Originals returns"
"THE FINEST HOURS"
"Hillary Clinton should be sentenced"
"Hope and pray"
"Diana, Jody and Carly"
"THIS JUST IN! TOP SECRET AFTER ALL!"
"What lie is left for Hillary now?"