[Big Mac]

"We owe a great debt of gratitude to our troops, to the president, to our intelligence services, to all who had a hand in apprehending Saddam," she said. "Now he will be brought to justice, and we hope that the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq will improve." --???

The quotation above came from whom?

[Warren Pease]

Who is Senator Hillary Clinton?

[Ganesha]

Does it matter?

[BRussell]

Some war monger, no doubt.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Warren Pease 

Who is Senator Hillary Clinton?

You're right, Warren! You have control of the board.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Ganesha 

Does it matter?

Yeah, I'd say it matters a whole lot.

[smacintush]

Here's another:

Hillary will be the next president, and she’ll be the worst president we’ve ever seen.

Pretty funny considering it's from someone who actually KNOWS her and worked with her.

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by Ganesha 

Does it matter?

Yeah, I agree. Does it matter?

[Atomic Rooster]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Here's another:


Pretty funny considering it's from someone who actually KNOWS her and worked with her.

How possibly could anyone be worse than George Bush. Even Millard Fillmore was a great man in George's shadow.



Keep on keeping on fooling yourself you won't believe it.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Here's another:

Pretty funny considering it's from someone who actually KNOWS her and worked with her.

Thankfully, Dick Morris' predictions have often been wrong. I respect his knowledge of Washington politics and I like the courageous stand he has taken against the Left, but he's not a very good prognosticator.

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Yeah, I'd say it matters a whole lot.

Why? She's not saying anything outrageous. She congratulating the president, troops and intelligence services on [b]a[/a] task well done, and following the statement with some wishful thinking.

There is nothing wrong with praising someone/something you disagree with if they did something praiseworthy.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Ganesha 

Why? She's not saying anything outrageous. She congratulating the president, troops and intelligence services on [b]a[/a] task well done, and following the statement with some wishful thinking.

There is nothing wrong with praising someone/something you disagree with if they did something praiseworthy.

Nothing wrong with that, no. But in Hillary's case, what she said at that time is very different from what she's saying now. Now she's trying desperately to take back her vote authorizing force, saying she would not have gone to war if she had been president (except she voted to do just that in Congress); whereas then she was congratulating the president on his prosecution of the war. You cannot praise someone for their effort in one breath and then decry it completely in another. She a total phony and a pure, power hungry opportunist-socialist. And if she were ever elected, God forbid, the effects would be dreadful.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

How possibly could anyone be worse than George Bush. Even Millard Fillmore was a great man in George's shadow.



Keep on keeping on fooling yourself you won't believe it.

And you keep being fooled by the pundits.

It's interesting that you use a former President in your post because I would hold that to say that Bush is the worst President ever is to have NO sense of history. As has been mentioned here MANY times even someone who has often been considered one of the greatest Presidents ever…like Lincoln or FDR…has done many far worse things.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thankfully, Dick Morris' predictions have often been wrong. I respect his knowledge of Washington politics and I like the courageous stand he has taken against the Left, but he's not a very good prognosticator.

I don't really put much into his predictions per se, but it is interesting to me how much he has spoken out against the Clintons. I guess the greater point isn't whether he is right, but WHY he would feel that way about her.

Of course that's assuming he isn't blatantly lying for some reason. (which is totally possible IMO)

[Big Mac]

He obviously had very bad experiences with Hillary. Most who have worked closely with her have.

[goMac]

I'm trying to understand why this thread is significant. A liberal said they hope Iraq becomes stable? That's not surprising in the least.

[BRussell]

Whenever I've seen Morris talk about the Clintons, I can't help but think they deserve each other. Clinton knew who Morris was (a Republican political consultant) when he hired him, but made a conscious decision to sell his soul. When Morris screws him over publicly, in that sniveling little way he has, Clinton is just getting what he deserves for taking him on in the first place.

[Ganesha]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You cannot praise someone for their effort in one breath and then decry it completely in another. She a total phony and a pure, power hungry opportunist

Why not? It's not like she's making the statements right after one another, several years have past.

By that logic. Everyone who praised Mark Foley prior to Sept, 28, 2006, cannot condemn him. Everyone who did so is a total phony and a pure opportunist. Of course, when I put it this way, it's easy to see the fallacy.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Whenever I've seen Morris talk about the Clintons, I can't help but think they deserve each other. Clinton knew who Morris was (a Republican political consultant) when he hired him, but made a conscious decision to sell his soul. When Morris screws him over publicly, in that sniveling little way he has, Clinton is just getting what he deserves for taking him on in the first place.

I agree with you 100%…that may be a first.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Ganesha 

By that logic. Everyone who praised Mark Foley prior to Sept, 28, 2006, cannot condemn him. Everyone who did so is a total phony and a pure opportunist. Of course, when I put it this way, it's easy to see the fallacy.

Very poor analogy - try a little harder next time. Those who may have praised Mark Foley were praising his legislative accomplishments with no knowledge of his "extra-Congressional" activities. Hillary praising the capture of Hussein and then completely denouncing the very same effort by the very same president that brought Hussein to justice is plain hypocrisy, or a flip-flop in Republican speak.

[Ganesha]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you are arguing.

If: A caused B. (A = "War/President's Actions", B="The capture of Saddam")
It follows that: You can't praise B and condemn then A, without being a hypocrite.

Now, as a Libertarian, I'm no supporter of the policies of H. Clinton and neither am I a supporter of the policies of G.W. Bush. And you may believe that the above logic train is sound for your A/B pair, because you believe that H. Clinton is a hypocrite, and that's fine. But, because most people can come up with an example of A/B where there is no hypocrisy, it makes the generalization of the above invalid. Because, the generalization is invalid does it make all cases of A/B invalid? Of course not, it just means if the first statement is true, you can't automatically claim the second one to be true.

IMO: If you are using an argument whose generalization is invalid to attack someone, it's not a very good argument, even if you believe it to be true. It is much better to use arguments whose generalization is always valid. There are many things one can use to attack someone as high profile as H. Clinton, but attacking her over the fact she once praised the president and is now critical of him, is not one of them. If you cannot come up with a case where the generalization is always valid one, off the top of your head (for H. Clinton), then you need to study your opponent more closely.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by goMac 

I'm trying to understand why this thread is significant. A liberal said they hope Iraq becomes stable? That's not surprising in the least.

As long as it doesn't happen under Bush they mean.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

How possibly could anyone be worse than George Bush.

Are you really this ignorant? If so, study some history and get your head out of your ass. You can start by reading up on life under Jimmy Carter's reign.

Folks like you keep blinding yourselves to the consistantly impressive economic performance that we've enjoyed for the last few years. GDP growth, productivity, treasury reciepts, employment, home ownership... you'll be hard pressed to find a President who has surpassed Bush's record on even a few of these. And considering he was handed a recession by his predecessor, the results are that much more impressive.

[besson3c]

You know, politicians are wayyyyy too guarded in what they say, and thus many simply spew talking points over and over again and rarely offer us candid moments.


Perhaps we shouldn't try to twist moments of candid speaking into some political opportunist thing? People will slip up now and then when they speak off the cuff, but I think we should stop digging and being ultra sensitive about moments like this. The Joe Biden moment was a good example, from a guy that should be praised for being genuine and speaking his mind.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Okay, for 5,000 and control of the board, who said:

"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."

[Face Ache]

Let's face it - Hillary Clinton is an opportunist.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Atomic Rooster 

How possibly could anyone be worse than George Bush.

Lincoln? Roosevelt?

[BRussell]

I don't think you'll find any liberal Democrats who defend Hillary on this. Look at the liberal web site dailkos's recent poll of presidential favorites of over 25000 people:

Edwards 26%
Obama 25%
Clark 14%
Richardson 6%
Kucinich 4%
H. Clinton 4%

That's right, she gets less votes than Kucinich. The liberal base of the Democratic party is more aware than anyone of Hillary's ridiculous positions on this, and it's really hurting her.

[Dakar²]

Well, I'll believe it when she starts losing primaries. Kerry didn't look like he was going anywhere for a while, too.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Dakar² 

Well, I'll believe it when she starts losing primaries. Kerry didn't look like he was going anywhere for a while, too.

In the overall opinion polling, I don't think there's any question about her having a decisive lead right now.



I'm just saying that the liberal base of the party doesn't like her. But she definitely has the support, probably mostly due to name recognition, among Democrats at large.

[Mithras]

While we're at it, who said this?

Originally Posted by Mystery Poster #1

The capture of Saddam is a good thing which I hope very much will keep our soldiers in Iraq and around the world safer. But the capture of Saddam has not made America safer.

[Mithras]

And while we're at it, who said the following in response to the previous quote?

Originally Posted by Mystery Poster #2

[That statement] is still more proof that all the advisers in the world can't give [Mystery Poster #1] the military and foreign policy experience, leadership skills, or diplomatic temperament necessary to lead this country through dangerous times.

[macintologist]

Originally Posted by Mithras 

While we're at it, who said this?

Mr Yeeeeaaarrrhhhg!

[macintologist]

Who said this in October of 2002?

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

 

Barack Obama

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Huh. That Obama quote is actually pretty decent. I'm surprised, for some reason.

greg

[Dakar²]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

In the overall opinion polling, I don't think there's any question about her having a decisive lead right now.



I'm just saying that the liberal base of the party doesn't like her. But she definitely has the support, probably mostly due to name recognition, among Democrats at large.

Its not opinion I'm worried about. Its what happens when she starts raising more money than her candidates and uses it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

As has been mentioned here MANY times even someone who has often been considered one of the greatest Presidents ever…like Lincoln or FDR…has done many far worse things.

I know enough history to say that anyone who would put Abraham Lincoln in the greatest Presidents category is still in kindergarden. Is that enough history to qualify me to play this parlor game?


Let's see... Foreign:

He dropped the ball on Afghanistan. He bungled Iraq. He poked NK with a stick and did nothing to smooth things over until they touched off a frigging nuke, something they were still 4 years away from, oh, say... 4 years ago. He now lacks the credibility, personnel and materiel to leverage against the genuine threat from Iran, a threat which he made worse by also poking them with a stick and doing nothing to follow up.

He's burned most of our global credibility. He torpedoed the Blair government. He has no policy to speak of to deal with an emerging China. He failed to cultivate our relationship with Russia. He failed to cultivate our relationship with Pakistan, who now harbors our enemies without retribution. He shoved his head about a foot farther up the arse of the psychotic Saudis.


Domestic:

He unnecessarily, and likely illegally, circumvented the FISA court. He unnecessarily suspended Habeas Corpus. He attempted to legalize torture.

His energy policy has both raped the consumer and has been ecologically and strategically unsound. His education policies are a failure (hence people thinking Lincoln was a great President). Health care is a non-issue. His fiscal irresponsibility makes even a hardcore Democrat wince.

He gets poor grades on the national security recommendations of the 9/11 commission. We have to take off our shoes at the airport but no one notices the Leatherman tool I forgot to take out of my carry-on. I don't think it would have been possible for him to blow his end of the Katrina disaster any harder.

He fields a particularly nasty political strategy that intentionally leverages fear and divisiveness. Most unforgivably, the fear of homosexuals.

On a personal level, he has (at least) two obvious character flaws which damage his ability to govern. He is incapable of showing contrition, and values loyalty far more than results. The former is a flaw in almost all circumstances. While the latter has good points between you and your drinking buddies, it's not the effective way to run the world's only superpower.

Trust me, he's in the running.

[macintologist]

subego, I'd say Lincoln was WAY worse a president than Bush is now. Bush didn't slaughter 600,000 of his own people. Bush didn't wage war on other states. Bush didn't unleash a wave of rape and pillaging through Georgia. Yes Bush is a terrible president but compared to Lincoln he's an angel, a moronic one yes, but still an angel.

[subego]

Originally Posted by macintologist 

subego, I'd say Lincoln was WAY worse a president than Bush is now. Bush didn't slaughter 600,000 of his own people. Bush didn't wage war on other states. Bush didn't unleash a wave of rape and pillaging through Georgia. Yes Bush is a terrible president but compared to Lincoln he's an angel, a moronic one yes, but still an angel.

Lincoln preserved the Union and, even though he didn't want to, freed the slaves. What is in Bush's positive column? We have a good economy, and... and... that's it.

I guess you're right though, we can give him credit for not racking up a pre-germ theory Napoleonic style bodycount. Good going George!